Female Founder Secrets: Fertility(femfosec.com)
femfosec.com
Female Founder Secrets: Fertility
https://femfosec.com/fertility/
769 comments
Here's an unpopular thought: raising kids, motivating them to learn, helping them mature, teaching them your values, helping them get out of bad influence, is a full-time job.
It requires education to explain the right things and show good examples. It requires soft skills to be patient and persuasive. It requires people skills to counter out bad influencers. It requires time, dedication and patience.
It's not the same job as doing taxes or writing code. But being a manager or a consultant in a software company is also different from classical hands-on jobs, and nobody has a problem with that.
But our society has taken a weird turn. Instead of recognizing the importance of this job, respecting stay-at-home parents and encouraging as many families as possible to invest in the future by taking the best care of their kids, we have effectively destroyed it. And thanks to supply/demand, it's now expected for both spouses to work if you want a regular lifestyle with regular jobs. So unless you are considerably richer than your neighbors, your chances are very weak.
It requires education to explain the right things and show good examples. It requires soft skills to be patient and persuasive. It requires people skills to counter out bad influencers. It requires time, dedication and patience.
It's not the same job as doing taxes or writing code. But being a manager or a consultant in a software company is also different from classical hands-on jobs, and nobody has a problem with that.
But our society has taken a weird turn. Instead of recognizing the importance of this job, respecting stay-at-home parents and encouraging as many families as possible to invest in the future by taking the best care of their kids, we have effectively destroyed it. And thanks to supply/demand, it's now expected for both spouses to work if you want a regular lifestyle with regular jobs. So unless you are considerably richer than your neighbors, your chances are very weak.
> raising kids [...] is a full-time job
Here's a contrary (and possibly even more unpopular) thought: some say spending inordinate amounts of time on child rearing is "doing it wrong". Some groups (orthodox jewish, for example) will argue that many parents helicopter too much to compensate for a lack of educational focus due to not having a well-established ethics framework to guide them.
Part of that narrative is obviously to promote certain religious frameworks, but it has a grain of truth: religious communities will generally agree among themselves on what's "right" and "wrong", and collectively impart that as part of social life, through religious stories and metaphors, etc painting the "ruleset" in broad brushstrokes, and then relying on things like natural consequences for granular learning, such that one specific individual does not need to micromanage every single aspect of their children's behaviors.
Older european descent folks might find an interesting correlation between being able to stay out as kids and family religious history. Obviously, it doesn't need to be based on religion. Japan is an interesting example where it's fairly common for both parents to work while relying on a strong collaborative social fabric nurtured from early school years.
Here's a contrary (and possibly even more unpopular) thought: some say spending inordinate amounts of time on child rearing is "doing it wrong". Some groups (orthodox jewish, for example) will argue that many parents helicopter too much to compensate for a lack of educational focus due to not having a well-established ethics framework to guide them.
Part of that narrative is obviously to promote certain religious frameworks, but it has a grain of truth: religious communities will generally agree among themselves on what's "right" and "wrong", and collectively impart that as part of social life, through religious stories and metaphors, etc painting the "ruleset" in broad brushstrokes, and then relying on things like natural consequences for granular learning, such that one specific individual does not need to micromanage every single aspect of their children's behaviors.
Older european descent folks might find an interesting correlation between being able to stay out as kids and family religious history. Obviously, it doesn't need to be based on religion. Japan is an interesting example where it's fairly common for both parents to work while relying on a strong collaborative social fabric nurtured from early school years.
Any communities with a strong framework. Case in point: Soviet Union. Though arguably a strong collective ideology and a religion aren’t that far off from each other.
And that's great until you have a kid with special needs like autism. Some kids need parenting that involves a lot of direct hours being put in. Raising kids is not a "one size fits all" kind of deal.
Should we plan for the special needs children though? I mean, certainly, reprioritizing when you have one makes a lot of sense, and we should as a society invest to make sure these children lead fulfilling lives.
But... bringing up special needs kids seems a bit disingenuous as a point when they're, I believe, a small minority of all children no?
But... bringing up special needs kids seems a bit disingenuous as a point when they're, I believe, a small minority of all children no?
There are a lot more people with "special needs" than people think.
In Australia, the (reported) rate of Autism in the general population is 0.7%. That's pretty huge, over 170,000 people. That's Autism alone.
My daughter for example has Type 1 Diabetes. It's much rarer than Autism. However, when you start adding all these up, it's significant.
In Australia, the (reported) rate of Autism in the general population is 0.7%. That's pretty huge, over 170,000 people. That's Autism alone.
My daughter for example has Type 1 Diabetes. It's much rarer than Autism. However, when you start adding all these up, it's significant.
I should probably qualify that I'm strictly talking about helicopter parenting (e.g. arguing with the daydreaming kid because they won't stick to a packed strict schedule). Special needs are, as the name says, special needs.
I think most of the people HN haven’t spent much time with people out of the “bubble”.
“Trigger warning”
This is my experience from my wife, our friends, and my community & family. But it might provide some insight.
90% of women I speak to would love not to work and would like to raise kids (most men too). It’s more about the wage gap. Most of the people I speak with believe (and I agree) believe the lack of wage growth (since 1970-ish) was created by offshoring jobs and illegal immigration that drive down wages to the point both members of the household have to work. Further exasperating the issue is the prison times and the push for “independence”, which leaves many single women.
Everyone my wife and I grew up with had both (or one) parent working - none seemed happy. The happiest and smartest people I know have / are stay at home moms.
“Trigger warning”
This is my experience from my wife, our friends, and my community & family. But it might provide some insight.
90% of women I speak to would love not to work and would like to raise kids (most men too). It’s more about the wage gap. Most of the people I speak with believe (and I agree) believe the lack of wage growth (since 1970-ish) was created by offshoring jobs and illegal immigration that drive down wages to the point both members of the household have to work. Further exasperating the issue is the prison times and the push for “independence”, which leaves many single women.
Everyone my wife and I grew up with had both (or one) parent working - none seemed happy. The happiest and smartest people I know have / are stay at home moms.
My job is a 40+ hour a week escape from my family. Overtime is a guilty pleasure. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way.
I force myself to spend time with my kids because of all the older people who say that they wish they had spent more time with their kids when they were younger. Many people I know who use work as an escape from family don't force themselves to spend time with their kids, and in 15 years I'll tell you who is happier...
I force myself to spend time with my kids because of all the older people who say that they wish they had spent more time with their kids when they were younger. Many people I know who use work as an escape from family don't force themselves to spend time with their kids, and in 15 years I'll tell you who is happier...
Why did you have kids then?
There’s also a theory that the larger proportion of women in the workplace post-1960s exacerbated this. By increasing the supply of employees, it drove down wages to a point where a single-income household is out of reach for most in the current structure. So even if they wanted to stay home, they can’t because their spouse isn’t likely to earn enough to support the household alone financially.
Wage stagnation has nothing to do with immigration and everything to do with the obscenely rich being permitted to get obscenely richer. It's disappointing that your friends have fallen for that lie.
Nothing to do with it is a strong claim.
Do you believe that labor is a market that does not generally behave like other markets in terms of supply and demand for price discovery? Do you believe that immigration did not increase supply by more than it increased demand? I’m trying to tease apart and understand your certainty that there is no downward pressure on wages from immigration.
Do you believe that labor is a market that does not generally behave like other markets in terms of supply and demand for price discovery? Do you believe that immigration did not increase supply by more than it increased demand? I’m trying to tease apart and understand your certainty that there is no downward pressure on wages from immigration.
Immigrants also grow the economy and so create jobs. They participate in the economy as consumers and as entrepreneurs. Maybe a way to think about it that might help is to imagine a country containing only you. Would your job be safe?
Imagine if you will two countries, one poor and one well off. What happens if you merge them? The average salary drops, GDP per capita drops, tax revenue per capita drops, will infrastructure and welfare spend per capita rises.
You might believe that it will catch up at some point, but no body think this will take less than a few generations.
Who benefits in the meantime? The largest corporations, the ones whose size is only limited by the size of the country. So not your local restaurant.
You might believe that it will catch up at some point, but no body think this will take less than a few generations.
Who benefits in the meantime? The largest corporations, the ones whose size is only limited by the size of the country. So not your local restaurant.
On the other hand imagine there was only one country in the world containing everyone, what would the average wage be?
This is somewhat dated, but the median salary on planet Earth is ~9k a year.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-in...
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-in...
Where are you getting this from? What you’re talking about is a symptom, not a cause.
While the issue is still hotly debated, the biggest causes for inequality and wage stagnation since the 1980s in order of impact is: skill-biased technological change (tech favoring skilled workers and amplifying their output, network effects, winner take all economics), globalization and offshoring, and China.
For comparison, the rise of China alone is believed to account for the loss of 20%+ of the manufacturing sector. Income taxes across the board are inequality decreasing in their effect.
I agree that more distribution is better for societal welfare, but “not taxing the rich enough” isn’t the cause of inequality
While the issue is still hotly debated, the biggest causes for inequality and wage stagnation since the 1980s in order of impact is: skill-biased technological change (tech favoring skilled workers and amplifying their output, network effects, winner take all economics), globalization and offshoring, and China.
For comparison, the rise of China alone is believed to account for the loss of 20%+ of the manufacturing sector. Income taxes across the board are inequality decreasing in their effect.
I agree that more distribution is better for societal welfare, but “not taxing the rich enough” isn’t the cause of inequality
> While the issue is still hotly debated, the biggest causes for inequality and wage stagnation since the 1980s in order of impact is: skill-biased technological change (tech favoring skilled workers and amplifying their output, network effects, winner take all economics), globalization and offshoring, and China.
> For comparison, the rise of China alone is believed to account for the loss of 20%+ of the manufacturing sector. Income taxes across the board are inequality decreasing in their effect
This narrative comes from people who have no understanding of manufacturing and don't take the time to check their predictions. An incredibly simple test is checking if decreases in american manufacturing employment coincide with increases in chinese and other overseas production (hint: they don't) or if american production decreased at the same imports grew (they didn't).
The main factor in manufacturing has been process changes which have dramatically increased worker productivity. For example, in 1920 it took 3 man-hours to produce 1 ton of steel in the US, now in the US 1 man hour produces 300 tons. And the improved productivity was not limited to developed countries with expensive labor markets - comparable changes were seen in countries like brazil and south africa over the same period.
People imagine such technological changes to be things like robots and machinery automating low skill tasks, and it's easy enough to see that's not happening. However people rarely appreciate where the real cost is in manufacturing. Take for example a plastic extruder: it takes a whole team of skilled people to get it started up, but a single unskilled person can easily operate it while it is running. Simple changes that allow you to run that extruder for longer without stopping, such as switching shift times and online maintenance, significantly reduce labor requirements even though no tasks are being automated.
The fact is americans are producing more, but they're not being compensated more. There aren't immigrants, foreigners, or robots doing the jobs cheaper, the jobs simply aren't being done because they are unnecessary now. Really, the issue is that the costs of these goods and services which are now so much easier to produce should have fallen but didn't (despite that 1000 fold increase in steel production per unit of labor, inflation adjusted the price of steel has remained constant over the same time period).
> For comparison, the rise of China alone is believed to account for the loss of 20%+ of the manufacturing sector. Income taxes across the board are inequality decreasing in their effect
This narrative comes from people who have no understanding of manufacturing and don't take the time to check their predictions. An incredibly simple test is checking if decreases in american manufacturing employment coincide with increases in chinese and other overseas production (hint: they don't) or if american production decreased at the same imports grew (they didn't).
The main factor in manufacturing has been process changes which have dramatically increased worker productivity. For example, in 1920 it took 3 man-hours to produce 1 ton of steel in the US, now in the US 1 man hour produces 300 tons. And the improved productivity was not limited to developed countries with expensive labor markets - comparable changes were seen in countries like brazil and south africa over the same period.
People imagine such technological changes to be things like robots and machinery automating low skill tasks, and it's easy enough to see that's not happening. However people rarely appreciate where the real cost is in manufacturing. Take for example a plastic extruder: it takes a whole team of skilled people to get it started up, but a single unskilled person can easily operate it while it is running. Simple changes that allow you to run that extruder for longer without stopping, such as switching shift times and online maintenance, significantly reduce labor requirements even though no tasks are being automated.
The fact is americans are producing more, but they're not being compensated more. There aren't immigrants, foreigners, or robots doing the jobs cheaper, the jobs simply aren't being done because they are unnecessary now. Really, the issue is that the costs of these goods and services which are now so much easier to produce should have fallen but didn't (despite that 1000 fold increase in steel production per unit of labor, inflation adjusted the price of steel has remained constant over the same time period).
This isn’t a “narrative”, it’s a studied research topic in economics, and a big one that draws plenty of attention and funding.
Like I said: skill-biased tech change is the biggest factor by far, but China dominating manufacturing apart from those technological changes has had a major impact as well.
Like I said: skill-biased tech change is the biggest factor by far, but China dominating manufacturing apart from those technological changes has had a major impact as well.
its basic supply and demand. the wealthy encourage mass immigration because it makes the cost of labour cheaper in the economies they run businesses in.
see: h1b visas and ultra pro immigration silicon valley companies
see: h1b visas and ultra pro immigration silicon valley companies
Those aren’t mutually exclusive ideas.
If we took every dollar from all the billionaires in the US we could give everyone around 10k.
If we did the same for the entire top 1% we could give everyone around 100k.
We could do this exactly once, and it would destroy enough wealth (most of this money is in assets, whose value would be destroyed in the process) that the real value you'd get out of that number would be A LOT less.
The rich are not the source of the working man's problems no matter how many times it gets repeated. People are payed based on supply and demand. Supply and demand is a byproduct of private property. If you like owning things, you're stuck with capitalism and supply and demand.
If we did the same for the entire top 1% we could give everyone around 100k.
We could do this exactly once, and it would destroy enough wealth (most of this money is in assets, whose value would be destroyed in the process) that the real value you'd get out of that number would be A LOT less.
The rich are not the source of the working man's problems no matter how many times it gets repeated. People are payed based on supply and demand. Supply and demand is a byproduct of private property. If you like owning things, you're stuck with capitalism and supply and demand.
Yes. Also the main point is: this means most of the gains (almost all) of a company go to the employees. The idea 9f let's redistribute income so the rich get less and everybody gets more would not make a real difference. (that is also the reason why the middle class has the highest total tax)
No, I got that part. My argument is that if those gains were redistributed to workers, income gains would be modest at best. 55k to 65k for a single year if we got rid of all billionaires. If we assume we instead distribute the growth of the wealth as income, it's more like 500-1000 dollars a year more in income.
If we take everything from everyone worth 2 million or more, and distribute it at 10% a year, that's still only 10k a year extra.
If we take everything from everyone worth 2 million or more, and distribute it at 10% a year, that's still only 10k a year extra.
And also that by doing this sort of redistribution, you will disincentivize investment, and incentivize consumption (from the rich) - after all, what good would the investment be, if it is going to be taken away when it succeeds, but you take on all the risk of the investment? Rather buy a yacht and go on lavish, extravagent holidays with the money - they can't redistribute the memories in the brain!
You are right that most of their wealth is tied up in assets but you don't need to convert their wealth into cash, you can just transfer ownership. Example, take Elon Musks shares in Tesla and just give them to random people. Some of those people may sell, but many won't.
This clearly won't destroy the value of Tesla since they will continue making cars. They made good cars before Elon joined Tesla, and they will continue after Elon leaves Tesla.
This clearly won't destroy the value of Tesla since they will continue making cars. They made good cars before Elon joined Tesla, and they will continue after Elon leaves Tesla.
> They made good cars before Elon joined Tesla
Musk became CEO of Tesla in Oct 2008.
As of Sept 10, 2008, Tesla had delivered 27 cars to customers.
That's about as "technically correct and practically wrong" as I've seen.
Musk became CEO of Tesla in Oct 2008.
As of Sept 10, 2008, Tesla had delivered 27 cars to customers.
That's about as "technically correct and practically wrong" as I've seen.
What's wrong here? It's not like Elon designed the model S, Mercedes engineers along with Tesla ones did. Mercedes invested in 10% of Tesla and even ordered Tesla batteries for Mercedes models. But found Tesla didn't test their batteries for durability and safety. Mercedes reduced the range of their B models and added shielding to compensate. Tesla owners had to learn the hard way after several Model S cars caught on fire. Tesla fixed it after the fact.
I wouldn't trust a company cutting so many corners. Recent recall is another example.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-tesla-newera-insigh...
I wouldn't trust a company cutting so many corners. Recent recall is another example.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-tesla-newera-insigh...
Tesla has sold over 1,000,000 cars at this point. Over 99.997% of those were sold after Musk was CEO.
So, while it's technically absolutely true that "they sold cars before Elon joined", it's a literal rounding error.
So, while it's technically absolutely true that "they sold cars before Elon joined", it's a literal rounding error.
Here I am, trying to give credit to Tesla's success to the countless engineers and designers who did 99.9% of the work. By your own math, what Elon did is a rounding error.
You think that if the bottom 50% of America, which can't afford a surprise 1000$ bill, is going to sit on 10k+ and not try to spend it? I have to disagree.
Every girlfriend I've had would happily be a stay at home wife. My current parter has a masters degree from Harvard and works very hard and even she would rather be a stay at home wife. But as you said I think it's both genders. I'd love it too
it's a thinly veiled request for UBI of some sort, but for parents to raise their kids.
> It’s more about the wage gap.
Perhaps things differ outside of software circles, but at least here this isn't true. People used to have larger families on much lower incomes. It is that with do much opportunity now, the opportunity cost of having kids keeps increasing.
Perhaps things differ outside of software circles, but at least here this isn't true. People used to have larger families on much lower incomes. It is that with do much opportunity now, the opportunity cost of having kids keeps increasing.
But our society has taken a weird turn. Instead of recognizing the importance of this job, respecting stay-at-home parents and encouraging as many families as possible to invest in the future by taking the best care of their kids, we have effectively destroyed it.
I don’t accept the “we” here. Who did what exactly to “destroy” it?
And thanks to supply/demand, it's now expected for both spouses to work if you want a regular lifestyle with regular jobs. So unless you are considerably richer than your neighbors, your chances are very weak.
I don’t understand what you are saying here. At the bottom end, sure it makes sense, but not when you are talking to a bunch of people in the tech industry.
If you have a household income of $200k/year you can live a “regular” $200k/year household lifestyle in a $200k/year house in a $200k/year neighborhood. That’s true whether that $200k/year comes from one earner or two. In fact, if it comes from one earner you are a little better off tax-wise (because of the social security cap.)
It’s true that you can’t live a $400k/year lifestyle if your household is only making $200k/year, but so what?
I don’t accept the “we” here. Who did what exactly to “destroy” it?
And thanks to supply/demand, it's now expected for both spouses to work if you want a regular lifestyle with regular jobs. So unless you are considerably richer than your neighbors, your chances are very weak.
I don’t understand what you are saying here. At the bottom end, sure it makes sense, but not when you are talking to a bunch of people in the tech industry.
If you have a household income of $200k/year you can live a “regular” $200k/year household lifestyle in a $200k/year house in a $200k/year neighborhood. That’s true whether that $200k/year comes from one earner or two. In fact, if it comes from one earner you are a little better off tax-wise (because of the social security cap.)
It’s true that you can’t live a $400k/year lifestyle if your household is only making $200k/year, but so what?
It is not just about the absolute income number but also about job security. If I make 200K today but am not guaranteed to make the same number 10-15 years down the line, it is better if my spouse works as well so that there is more chances of at least one of us having a job if other one gets fired or laid off or offshored. In 50's and 60's, one could reliably count on their job and pension for the lifetime, thus allowing psychological security needed for planning a family.
> I don’t accept the “we” here. Who did what exactly to “destroy” it?
Companies decided to outsource manufacturing jobs to third world countries and politicians accepted free trade in the name of some stupid theories about "greater wealth" creation, without pausing to think about a fairer distribution of that extra wealth. That led to stagnation of lower- and middle- middle class in the West while yielding vast gains to the rich Westerners and the newly middle-class people in developing countries.
> I don’t accept the “we” here. Who did what exactly to “destroy” it?
Companies decided to outsource manufacturing jobs to third world countries and politicians accepted free trade in the name of some stupid theories about "greater wealth" creation, without pausing to think about a fairer distribution of that extra wealth. That led to stagnation of lower- and middle- middle class in the West while yielding vast gains to the rich Westerners and the newly middle-class people in developing countries.
Many commenters seem to ignore the fact that lots of quality products produced in the USA at higher cost (higher wages) were exported at those high prices to countries who had a hard job paying for them.
Because of their high prices, competition naturally occurred in those international markets, which led to a downward pressure on USA product prices, and ultimately wages, and job offshoring.
Basically, the global economy is a cycle: the USA was, for the large part, first to benefit by selling "overpriced" (to other countries' standards) products, but markets have pushed those products out, before readmitting them at somewhat reduced prices.
It is to the benefit of the US production for wages and spending power to grow throughout the world, since that leads to increased exports at — now — affordable prices for the world! Heck, it's a tactic employed in both recent crises to get US products to sell (2008 and 2020, USD was at the lowest level compared to eg. EUR for a while): basically, by decreasing the international value of USD, you are increasing the spending power of other countries willing to buy US products.
The only thing uncertain is if we ever get to wage parity throughout the world (unlikely at 100%, but I think effects would be felt even at 50%), will we prosper or fall?
Because of their high prices, competition naturally occurred in those international markets, which led to a downward pressure on USA product prices, and ultimately wages, and job offshoring.
Basically, the global economy is a cycle: the USA was, for the large part, first to benefit by selling "overpriced" (to other countries' standards) products, but markets have pushed those products out, before readmitting them at somewhat reduced prices.
It is to the benefit of the US production for wages and spending power to grow throughout the world, since that leads to increased exports at — now — affordable prices for the world! Heck, it's a tactic employed in both recent crises to get US products to sell (2008 and 2020, USD was at the lowest level compared to eg. EUR for a while): basically, by decreasing the international value of USD, you are increasing the spending power of other countries willing to buy US products.
The only thing uncertain is if we ever get to wage parity throughout the world (unlikely at 100%, but I think effects would be felt even at 50%), will we prosper or fall?
> That’s true whether that $200k/year comes from one earner or two. In fact, if it comes from one earner you are a little better off tax-wise (because of the social security cap.)
Wait. What? Where are you that does not have tax brackets? Is that common in the US?
In Australia you are substantially penalised for being a household that draws all your income from one person. It's not even close. And it's infuriating.
One salary $200k/yr, in pocket after tax = $135,333
One salary $100k/yr, in pocket after tax = $75,813 Multiplied by two = $151,626
That's $1,385.50 difference in available income per month.
Wait. What? Where are you that does not have tax brackets? Is that common in the US?
In Australia you are substantially penalised for being a household that draws all your income from one person. It's not even close. And it's infuriating.
One salary $200k/yr, in pocket after tax = $135,333
One salary $100k/yr, in pocket after tax = $75,813 Multiplied by two = $151,626
That's $1,385.50 difference in available income per month.
In the US they have the concept of filing jointly. If you have one partner earning a lot more than the other then you can get tax bracket advantages of both when you pool your incomes together.
Interesting. I knew some countries in Europe had joint filing. I was unaware that the US did.
Does anyone know what the requirements are for the non-working individual to be considered for joint filing?
Say if you're on a working visa, but your spouse is not, presumably you don't get the tax benefits?
Does anyone know what the requirements are for the non-working individual to be considered for joint filing?
Say if you're on a working visa, but your spouse is not, presumably you don't get the tax benefits?
I believe you'd still be able to file jointly if you're on a working visa and your spouse is not working, even if they don't reside in the US. The only caveat is that their worldwide income would be subject to US taxation if they have income from abroad.
https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/family/claiming-a-non-c...
"In general, resident aliens are taxed just like U.S. citizens. You would list a resident-alien spouse on your return and provide his or her Social Security number (SSN). If your spouse is not eligible for a Social Security number, he or she will need to apply for an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) from the IRS.
If your spouse is a nonresident alien, you can treat your spouse as a resident alien for tax purposes. If you choose this option, you can file a joint tax return with your spouse and have an increased standard deduction. You increase your standard deduction, but all your spouse's worldwide income will be taxed by the United States."
Reference on "Standard Deduction": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deduction
https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/family/claiming-a-non-c...
"In general, resident aliens are taxed just like U.S. citizens. You would list a resident-alien spouse on your return and provide his or her Social Security number (SSN). If your spouse is not eligible for a Social Security number, he or she will need to apply for an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) from the IRS.
If your spouse is a nonresident alien, you can treat your spouse as a resident alien for tax purposes. If you choose this option, you can file a joint tax return with your spouse and have an increased standard deduction. You increase your standard deduction, but all your spouse's worldwide income will be taxed by the United States."
Reference on "Standard Deduction": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deduction
Unless you have kids, which then opens up another world of benefits.
The married, childless middle class really does get a bit screwed when it comes to taxes.
The married, childless middle class really does get a bit screwed when it comes to taxes.
If we're still talking about Australia, there is no Family Tax Benefit for a single income provider earning above $104,281. It tapers off as you approach that.
As a general rule the Australian Government make it very difficult for families to have a stay-at-home carer. It's substantially more viable (monetarily speaking) for most families to send their kids to daycare, which is Government supported, and both work.
As a general rule the Australian Government make it very difficult for families to have a stay-at-home carer. It's substantially more viable (monetarily speaking) for most families to send their kids to daycare, which is Government supported, and both work.
Same in NZ, it'd be nice if income splitting were allowed but no-one seems interested in it.
Instead we offer rather large tax rebates to people with children instead.
Instead we offer rather large tax rebates to people with children instead.
[deleted]
It's a form of demographic debt. By increasing the workforce #, you decrease the amount of kids people have (because they can't afford the time to have many kids) but increase total GDP until you pay the piper later with decrease reproduction rates and more seniors that the economically productive.
I also want to say that it's not necessarily good to have one person be the house spouse only and then come out the other end with no skills. That can be a trap and be especially bad if a divorce or other split up happens, not to mention when your a bored empty nester.
It's good to be have some skilled profession to come back to. Kids are time consuming from the start, but they start spending less and less time with you as they get older.
I also want to say that it's not necessarily good to have one person be the house spouse only and then come out the other end with no skills. That can be a trap and be especially bad if a divorce or other split up happens, not to mention when your a bored empty nester.
It's good to be have some skilled profession to come back to. Kids are time consuming from the start, but they start spending less and less time with you as they get older.
>it's not necessarily good to have one person be the house spouse only and then come out the other end with no skills.
I don’t want to speak for them but I think part of the OP’s point is that this isn’t the takeaway we should have, but rather recognize and value the transferable skills one acquires in the role of a stay-at-home parent. It’s not unlike the trouble many military members had decades ago before there were as many resources to help employees and employers understand what skills transfer across domains
I don’t want to speak for them but I think part of the OP’s point is that this isn’t the takeaway we should have, but rather recognize and value the transferable skills one acquires in the role of a stay-at-home parent. It’s not unlike the trouble many military members had decades ago before there were as many resources to help employees and employers understand what skills transfer across domains
Family skills can be valued by many people, but they are visible and impactful mainly within the family. As a result, a partner with a public career has more personal options. They can find new jobs, negotiate their schedule, and invest in themselves to have a secure source of income in case of disaster. Thus can work wonderfully for equal partners who share the opportunity together, but it can create a power imbalance when things - any of a wide variety of things - go wrong.
In my household, we sort of accidentally fell into what I feel is a healthy middle ground (for us). Fairly traditional gender roles where I bring home the income and she has ended up focusing on childcare while finishing school. That said, we could definitely stand to optimize some things in regard to workload balancing; my time outside of work consists of us taking turns letting each other rest from or responsibilities e.g. spend time doing absolutely nothing. In a few years, both of our kids will be in school (1 currently is), and she will likely bring home just as much if not more than half of the income when she re-enters the workforce unless I receive a large pay increase between now and then for whatever reason.
Of course it hasn't been a breeze and we've both atrophied in some personal areas of skill due to this specialization. I tend to talk to people like each future action is a step in a project to be completed, then relieve myself of the details of any task I don't play a direct role in. Sometimes useful, sometimes not. She gets a list of things done in the time it takes for me to make a plan of action but is overwhelmed more when considering the large and/or complex tasks and the time management involved, though is otherwise equally proficient. There's some synergy in there that we're still figuring out.
Of course it hasn't been a breeze and we've both atrophied in some personal areas of skill due to this specialization. I tend to talk to people like each future action is a step in a project to be completed, then relieve myself of the details of any task I don't play a direct role in. Sometimes useful, sometimes not. She gets a list of things done in the time it takes for me to make a plan of action but is overwhelmed more when considering the large and/or complex tasks and the time management involved, though is otherwise equally proficient. There's some synergy in there that we're still figuring out.
The data don't support this story. Time spent with kids is going up, not down, especially for parents with higher education: https://news.uci.edu/2016/09/28/todays-parents-spend-more-ti...
I think that depending on age of the children, it's actually about a half-time job.
This puts you in an awkward position - it is really hard to get a half-time job, or at least a good half-time job - even if you can find one, you have almost certainly killed long-term career prospects because employers generally prefer full-term employees. And there is no point screwing up both of your careers by both going slightly part-time, so you easily end up in a rather awkward situation of either outsourcing a lot of parenting work that isn't ideally outsourced, or one of you giving up their career.
It is usually the person earning less who makes that sacrifice, so even a fairly small income disparity turns into a huge one.
This puts you in an awkward position - it is really hard to get a half-time job, or at least a good half-time job - even if you can find one, you have almost certainly killed long-term career prospects because employers generally prefer full-term employees. And there is no point screwing up both of your careers by both going slightly part-time, so you easily end up in a rather awkward situation of either outsourcing a lot of parenting work that isn't ideally outsourced, or one of you giving up their career.
It is usually the person earning less who makes that sacrifice, so even a fairly small income disparity turns into a huge one.
It's a demanding and important job, no doubt, but it's not a full time job over the entire working life of a parent. The norm throughout history--and even today in traditional societies practicing subsistence agriculture--has been for both spouses to "work."
[deleted]
[deleted]
Why would 24x7 contact with the mother and no one else be "the best care" for the kid?
Who says it's not a part time job for two people?
Who says our ability to cooperate in groups, the key to our success in practically every area, would skip this one?
Who says it's not a part time job for two people?
Who says our ability to cooperate in groups, the key to our success in practically every area, would skip this one?
Maybe it is a full time job. And maybe this is where the atomic family unit breaks apart. Maybe we need communal child rearing efforts.
It is a full time job but it doesn't really have to be done by the genitors themselves, hence why we generalized childcare.
True, but a rather depressing thought, nonetheless. Let's take out loans so we can go to school so we can get a good job so we can pay strangers to raise our children.
Thanks. This is something dudes can't write about. My wife & I simply decided decades ago that one of us would always not work. We lived cheaply so we could accomplish that goal, but we wanted a good family life.
I would have been happy to be a househusband because she's about 50 times the programmer I am, but she doesn't love business and I do. We ended up doing great, but we had to start out assuming that a 2-career life would simply be too much stress in the high tech world. Great thing is it forced me to make creative choices, but one thing that got us both hoodwinked was this notion that a woman is as fertile at 35 as she is at 21. Um... no. So we had two severely handicapped kids. It would have been nice if the popular press had been a little more honest about the biology--but of course I should have educated myself better.
I would have been happy to be a househusband because she's about 50 times the programmer I am, but she doesn't love business and I do. We ended up doing great, but we had to start out assuming that a 2-career life would simply be too much stress in the high tech world. Great thing is it forced me to make creative choices, but one thing that got us both hoodwinked was this notion that a woman is as fertile at 35 as she is at 21. Um... no. So we had two severely handicapped kids. It would have been nice if the popular press had been a little more honest about the biology--but of course I should have educated myself better.
What is your opinion on this paper? I'm really quite surprised because although the sample size is commendable, it really doesn't reflect my own experience or reality amongst my social circle.
https://paa2013.princeton.edu/papers/132585
https://paa2013.princeton.edu/papers/132585
Why can't men write about it?
For the same reasons it needs to be written about.
Parts of what she wrote are similar to parts of what James Damore wrote, and he was fired for it.
Cancel culture isn't a real thing. /s
James Damore went a bit further than the author did. He also didn't take care to avoid offense and misunderstanding when talking about certain topics.
For example, he mentioned that women, on average, have more neuroticism. He's technically correct in terms of the psychological definition of the word (women will, on average, experience higher levels of anxiety than men when exposed to the same level of negative stimulus), but he didn't consider the political ramifications of describing 3.5 billion people as neurotic.
If a woman had written what he did, she would have been ripped to shreds also.
For example, he mentioned that women, on average, have more neuroticism. He's technically correct in terms of the psychological definition of the word (women will, on average, experience higher levels of anxiety than men when exposed to the same level of negative stimulus), but he didn't consider the political ramifications of describing 3.5 billion people as neurotic.
If a woman had written what he did, she would have been ripped to shreds also.
> For example, he mentioned that women, on average, have more neuroticism. [..] he didn't consider the political ramifications of describing 3.5 billion people as neurotic.
You're doing it too. If I say "men have, on average, more muderous tendencies than women", am I describing 3.5 billion people as murderers?
You're doing it too. If I say "men have, on average, more muderous tendencies than women", am I describing 3.5 billion people as murderers?
You're technically not, but don't be surprised if people react as though you are.
Certainly, but I don't find the fault to be with the statement, but with people. Our inability to separate "inconvenient general fact" from "specific, personal insult to whole swathes of people" is one of the banes of modern discourse.
Unfortunately, you're communicating with other people. Unless you find a way to magically stop people getting triggered, it's best to avoid certain trigger words and be careful when expressing certain points.
When you're the author, yes, absolutely. When you're a reader, absolutely not, you need to consider what the author is saying rather than what your personal feelings make you think he's saying. Each party must be responsible for their part, and while "he could have been more tactful" is valid criticism, "he shouldn't have offended people" is not.
Just to be more tactful, I don't remember exactly what had happened with this whole thing, I'm only talking about this specific fact.
Just to be more tactful, I don't remember exactly what had happened with this whole thing, I'm only talking about this specific fact.
Or actually educate people on both logic and reality. I realize it seems to be asking for a lot, but we can do better.
I help them with exposure therapy.
Absolutely not. If you are talking about young men, you are stating a statistical fact. As a former young man, I would not be the least bit offended.
> He also didn't take care to avoid offense and misunderstanding when talking about certain topics.
I don't think it's realistic to ask people to walk on egg shells is realistic when misunderstanding and offensiveness are always in the mind of the audience and therefore can't be fully controlled.
> but he didn't consider the political ramifications of describing 3.5 billion people as neurotic
I think people working at Google have a basic understanding of statistical distribution...
I don't think it's realistic to ask people to walk on egg shells is realistic when misunderstanding and offensiveness are always in the mind of the audience and therefore can't be fully controlled.
> but he didn't consider the political ramifications of describing 3.5 billion people as neurotic
I think people working at Google have a basic understanding of statistical distribution...
What I never understood was if there are less female software devs simply because they genuinely value others things more in life than staring at pixels on a computer screen (e.g. raising a family) and if this is the case in other time intensive fields such as medicine and law?
Biological clock and childrearing are well understood from an evolutionary perspective and are things that affect men disproportionately less.
When the topic of gender diversity in tech comes up, why is this such a controversial point to raise or am I missing the argument for gender diversity in STEM fields? More women are graduating college than men are they not? Why are fields like Human Resources and Nursing dominated by women? Are there simply different skill sets that differ between men and women that we are not acknowledging?
Anyone have any studies or data on this topic to explain why?
Biological clock and childrearing are well understood from an evolutionary perspective and are things that affect men disproportionately less.
When the topic of gender diversity in tech comes up, why is this such a controversial point to raise or am I missing the argument for gender diversity in STEM fields? More women are graduating college than men are they not? Why are fields like Human Resources and Nursing dominated by women? Are there simply different skill sets that differ between men and women that we are not acknowledging?
Anyone have any studies or data on this topic to explain why?
Honestly, I think most of these things are essentially tribal. A great source of data to support this idea is the 2015 table of physicians by gender and subspecialty [1]. Why are neurologists 28% female while neurological surgeons are only 7.8% female? Why are women 5% of orthopedic surgeons by 11.3% of vascular surgeons? You can come up with all sorts of just so stories (oh it's the hours, it's the blood) but then oops women make up 26.6% of emergency medicine specialists, so guess it's not hours or gore... What I see in math is that people flock to people to either are like them, or are nice to them, or to people who'll hire them. If you're deciding on your surgery specialty and the vascular surgeons will talk with you and the orthopedic surgeons snub you, you'll probably go for vascular surgery. It's certainly what happened in math grad school; if the numerical analysts were mean to women and the combinatorists were cool and said grad students only had to pay $5 for seminar dinners and weren't mean, magically combinatorics had more women (and more men, too, because this also applies to dudes!). If you get your first software dev job out of college and all the guys sort of avoid you and won't talk to you and wonder why you're there instead of raising your non-existent family, maybe... you'll end up somewhere else. Life is short.
Women make up the majority of house cleaners. It's not because women are so in love with cleaning, it's because it's a flexible job you can get into through another (often female) contact that will sometimes let you bring your five-year-old kid along so you don't need childcare. Longhaul trucking won't, in general, let you bring your five-year-old kid along so you don't need childcare (you really can't stop for potty often enough), and many blue collar jobs men hold are also gotten by family and neighborhood contacts.
[1] https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/workforce/interactive-data...
Women make up the majority of house cleaners. It's not because women are so in love with cleaning, it's because it's a flexible job you can get into through another (often female) contact that will sometimes let you bring your five-year-old kid along so you don't need childcare. Longhaul trucking won't, in general, let you bring your five-year-old kid along so you don't need childcare (you really can't stop for potty often enough), and many blue collar jobs men hold are also gotten by family and neighborhood contacts.
[1] https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/workforce/interactive-data...
The ironic thing is that the earliest programmers are women. I think I saw or read that the reason why there is such a gender disparity in programming is because programming was marketed as a male-oriented activity in the 80's. Sadly, I can't find the source for that anymore.
> The ironic thing is that the earliest programmers are women.
That's not correct, or at least, very misleading. The "programming" which you're refering to, would be more precisely called "data entry" using today's terminology. The actual software development was done mostly by men, even back then. In the 60s/70s, when computers increasingly had proper input methods (screen and keyboard), the data entry part was swallowed by the development part, but the term "programming" stuck.
What is today understood as "programming", has always been dominated by men. I don't know why that is, and I don't care to speculate, but the narrative that female software developers have been pushed out of the field is wrong.
That's not correct, or at least, very misleading. The "programming" which you're refering to, would be more precisely called "data entry" using today's terminology. The actual software development was done mostly by men, even back then. In the 60s/70s, when computers increasingly had proper input methods (screen and keyboard), the data entry part was swallowed by the development part, but the term "programming" stuck.
What is today understood as "programming", has always been dominated by men. I don't know why that is, and I don't care to speculate, but the narrative that female software developers have been pushed out of the field is wrong.
> The "programming" which you're refering to, would be more precisely called "data entry" using today's terminology.
Most programmers today are in the "data entry" business from Stackoverflow...
Most programmers today are in the "data entry" business from Stackoverflow...
I suspected that the whole “geek culture” around computers started to grow around the time when video games were heavily marketed to young boys. And it’s natural that through video games these young boys would have grown interest in computers and eventually programming. I admit that this theory needs quite a lot more research though. (Maybe it’s the other way around, the prevalence of male geek culture changed the landscape of video game marketing? Or perhaps it’s not just cause-and-effect and more of a positive feedback loop.)
The funny thing is that at the start of the video game industry (I would mark that as the Atari era), TV advertisements for it really didn’t marketed it specifically for boys, it was more for “the whole family” and for both boys and girls. The heavily gendered marketing started in the Nintendo era (years after the Atari shock), around the late-80s to early-90s you see a large shift in style of TV video game ads. I don’t currently have links to the TV ad archives, but you can find lots of it on Youtube.
The funny thing is that at the start of the video game industry (I would mark that as the Atari era), TV advertisements for it really didn’t marketed it specifically for boys, it was more for “the whole family” and for both boys and girls. The heavily gendered marketing started in the Nintendo era (years after the Atari shock), around the late-80s to early-90s you see a large shift in style of TV video game ads. I don’t currently have links to the TV ad archives, but you can find lots of it on Youtube.
I heard it on planet money a few years ago: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when...
Thanks, yes this is the source.
If that’s a sincere question, look up the term “male privilege“
> It would have been nice if the popular press had been a little more honest about the biology
You are not alone with this sentiment.
Some years ago, in my 20s/early 30s-something friend groups, any time the topic of declining female fertility with age came up, it was basically attacked as fake news and a conspiracy by older, conservative family members to get them to breed.
Moreover, sex education in school was 110% about all the wonderful ways you can avoid getting pregnant.
As I reflect back on it, no one calmly, but firmly gave the message that female fertility (in particular) is neither a given nor to be taken for granted, and that sooner than you expect it drops to zero. Beyond that point, it can only be extended by extremely expensive, painful medical procedures, and even then there is no guarantee.
----
Edit: Another thing that comes to mind is that women have it really tough, in a lot of ways, and this one feels the most relevant.
I think for women, people close to you and people who you don't even know seem to take particular interest in the choices you make with your body: How you dress, how you do your makeup, who you sleep with, who you date, what you do for work, etc etc etc. Infinitely more so than with men. I think with all that going on, for young women, discussions of female fertility just feel like yet another way people are sticking their noses in her business while telling her whats best and sapping her autonomy. And I think that's why to lots of friends groups with lots of 20-something women this all feels like fake news and sinister.
You are not alone with this sentiment.
Some years ago, in my 20s/early 30s-something friend groups, any time the topic of declining female fertility with age came up, it was basically attacked as fake news and a conspiracy by older, conservative family members to get them to breed.
Moreover, sex education in school was 110% about all the wonderful ways you can avoid getting pregnant.
As I reflect back on it, no one calmly, but firmly gave the message that female fertility (in particular) is neither a given nor to be taken for granted, and that sooner than you expect it drops to zero. Beyond that point, it can only be extended by extremely expensive, painful medical procedures, and even then there is no guarantee.
----
Edit: Another thing that comes to mind is that women have it really tough, in a lot of ways, and this one feels the most relevant.
I think for women, people close to you and people who you don't even know seem to take particular interest in the choices you make with your body: How you dress, how you do your makeup, who you sleep with, who you date, what you do for work, etc etc etc. Infinitely more so than with men. I think with all that going on, for young women, discussions of female fertility just feel like yet another way people are sticking their noses in her business while telling her whats best and sapping her autonomy. And I think that's why to lots of friends groups with lots of 20-something women this all feels like fake news and sinister.
This is super unpopular, but I think young marriages actually give women more autonomy.
When you’re 18, marry a 30 year old guy — then take 6 years for undergrad, have three kids along the way, and let him pay for it. Then do graduate school while they grow up.
You’ll get out of school, debt free at 30, and already have three kids at school age — ready to be bussed off while you tackle that career. You won’t have to take a career break for children, because they’ll be in school when you start.
When you’re 18, marry a 30 year old guy — then take 6 years for undergrad, have three kids along the way, and let him pay for it. Then do graduate school while they grow up.
You’ll get out of school, debt free at 30, and already have three kids at school age — ready to be bussed off while you tackle that career. You won’t have to take a career break for children, because they’ll be in school when you start.
Raising 3 kids while at the same time completing undergrad studies in 6 years: I think you are missing some real-life experience to support that conjecture (I see you are adding 2 years on top of the standard 4 year undergrad program, so you are obviously trying).
I imagine you are not a mainly stay-at-home parent who did that, let alone one who went to University at the same time.
But even if you are, some kids are just that much harder to deal with than others (you know, just like some people are).
Now, my wife and I, who started having kids only in their 30s, admit that some of the things would have been much easier if we've only started earlier. But the likelihood of kicking off on a long, shared life path with someone you haven't met intimately, or without knowing yourself intimately (which I think is true for most people at 21, let alone 18), is minimal.
I imagine you are not a mainly stay-at-home parent who did that, let alone one who went to University at the same time.
But even if you are, some kids are just that much harder to deal with than others (you know, just like some people are).
Now, my wife and I, who started having kids only in their 30s, admit that some of the things would have been much easier if we've only started earlier. But the likelihood of kicking off on a long, shared life path with someone you haven't met intimately, or without knowing yourself intimately (which I think is true for most people at 21, let alone 18), is minimal.
I’m not sure I agree, particularly with the last sentence — but I wanted to let you know I appreciate the thoughtful reply.
Have a good one!
Have a good one!
> one thing that got us both hoodwinked was this notion that a woman is as fertile at 35 as she is at 21. Um... no. So we had two severely handicapped kids.
(Preamble: not trying to argue anything about parent comment's experience, just wanted to find data about this.)
Some data on the rate of Down syndrome per 10,000 births vs. maternal age appears on p10 of this paper [1]. The rate is a stable 6-7 per 10,000 for the mothers in their 20s, about 50% higher for mothers age 30-35, and then jumps to 25-30 per 10,000 for mothers age 35-40 (4x the 20s rate), and something like 100 per 10,000 for mothers age 40+ (>10x the 20s rate).
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4636004/pdf/nih...
(Preamble: not trying to argue anything about parent comment's experience, just wanted to find data about this.)
Some data on the rate of Down syndrome per 10,000 births vs. maternal age appears on p10 of this paper [1]. The rate is a stable 6-7 per 10,000 for the mothers in their 20s, about 50% higher for mothers age 30-35, and then jumps to 25-30 per 10,000 for mothers age 35-40 (4x the 20s rate), and something like 100 per 10,000 for mothers age 40+ (>10x the 20s rate).
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4636004/pdf/nih...
I’ve found that people take great offense to the notion that fertility is majorly affected by your 30s. I think people just don’t like to acknowledge their age, and it’s probably worse for those that are in their 30s and still not married.
Honestly, it should be a thing for guys to freeze sperm when we’re young due to the ease of it. Unfortunately for women it’s not so easy.
Honestly, it should be a thing for guys to freeze sperm when we’re young due to the ease of it. Unfortunately for women it’s not so easy.
> When I mention it to someone that I want to take time off for a couple years to have children in silicon valley, they look at me as if I'm an alien. As if wanting to be pregnant and not working at the same time as being sleep deprived and wanting to spend time with my own baby when they are at their youngest is some strange outlandish fantasy.
And this happens way more than people lead on and for the exact BS reasons you call out. As someone who dated in SF not for the hookup but to try and find a life partner who wanted to prioritize and raise a family, it was bleak. We almost seem intent on reinforcing “career is king”, not tearing it down.
And this happens way more than people lead on and for the exact BS reasons you call out. As someone who dated in SF not for the hookup but to try and find a life partner who wanted to prioritize and raise a family, it was bleak. We almost seem intent on reinforcing “career is king”, not tearing it down.
I don't want to sound like an extremist but this is what happens when everything in life is mercantilised. Money becomes king.
It's partly that, but it's partly what the GP comment says: the prevalent idea that true equality of the sexes is for women to become exact copies of men. Since women and men are not exact copies, this causes problems.
Imo it's because there's less social resistance for women to take on the roles of men.
Until men that take on the former roles of women are viewed equivalently in the dating market, it's going to be a much harder slog
Until men that take on the former roles of women are viewed equivalently in the dating market, it's going to be a much harder slog
Women across all income demographics desire men who make as much or more than them. It's a fundamental preference that OKCupid identified a long time ago.
As a man, I don't fault this. The risk to a man of reproducing with a woman who isn't great at making money isn't as high, at a fundamental level, as it is for women. A man isn't incapacitated in any way by the act of reproducing. Nor is he prevented or blocked out of reproducing with others, at an evolutionary level. A woman is at great risk for mating with a man who isn't a good provider. If he abandons her, she's stuck. This was the reality for our ancestors, and those preferences are baked into our genes. The opportunity cost of mating with a loser was horrific for women.
In case anyone thinks that preference is cultural, it's not. It exists across every culture on the planet, not unlike the biological attraction men have to women who display physical features that are indicative of high fertility.
Biology is brutal and doesn't care about fairness or morality.
As a man, I don't fault this. The risk to a man of reproducing with a woman who isn't great at making money isn't as high, at a fundamental level, as it is for women. A man isn't incapacitated in any way by the act of reproducing. Nor is he prevented or blocked out of reproducing with others, at an evolutionary level. A woman is at great risk for mating with a man who isn't a good provider. If he abandons her, she's stuck. This was the reality for our ancestors, and those preferences are baked into our genes. The opportunity cost of mating with a loser was horrific for women.
In case anyone thinks that preference is cultural, it's not. It exists across every culture on the planet, not unlike the biological attraction men have to women who display physical features that are indicative of high fertility.
Biology is brutal and doesn't care about fairness or morality.
> Biology is brutal and doesn't care about fairness or morality.
I still try to meditate on the evolutionary advances for sexual vs asexual reproduction to begin with. There's got to be a huge advantage of the separation of the sexes that is hard to fathom just because it's everywhere. Is it a springboard of genetic diversity that optimizes in ways we can't imagine otherwise? The 'compared to what' is always something I wanted to contemplate. Like why did organisms split into near copies of each other with male and female? Why had one developed that carried the womb and the other not? Was it just simple reproductive concurrency? The separation being the better evolutionary choice is so mysterious to me.
I still try to meditate on the evolutionary advances for sexual vs asexual reproduction to begin with. There's got to be a huge advantage of the separation of the sexes that is hard to fathom just because it's everywhere. Is it a springboard of genetic diversity that optimizes in ways we can't imagine otherwise? The 'compared to what' is always something I wanted to contemplate. Like why did organisms split into near copies of each other with male and female? Why had one developed that carried the womb and the other not? Was it just simple reproductive concurrency? The separation being the better evolutionary choice is so mysterious to me.
Evolution = variation + selection
Variation = mutation + gene mixing (i.e. sexual reproduction)
Without ability to mix genes, the species is left with only one kind of variation: mutation, which is horribly inefficient.
Variation = mutation + gene mixing (i.e. sexual reproduction)
Without ability to mix genes, the species is left with only one kind of variation: mutation, which is horribly inefficient.
If you have advantageous mutations in two parallel family trees, sexual reproduction permits them to join into a single tree while asexual (splitting) doesn't. There's a similar effect for eliminating harmful mutations that coincide with beneficial mutations.
It's more complex in practice for bacteria - there can be DNA transmitted horizontally - but bacteria usually win out by sheer numbers.
It's more complex in practice for bacteria - there can be DNA transmitted horizontally - but bacteria usually win out by sheer numbers.
Another advantage is that a population that doesn't consist of clones is more resistant to diseases.
With regards to "why separate sexes? why two?", the technical reason is mitochondria, the "cells" within our cells: you don't want the copies from one parent to fight with copies from another parent. The standard solution for the multicellular organisms is that only one parent provides mitochondria, the other does not. There were attempts with more than two sexes, turned out to be too complicated.
With regards to "why separate sexes? why two?", the technical reason is mitochondria, the "cells" within our cells: you don't want the copies from one parent to fight with copies from another parent. The standard solution for the multicellular organisms is that only one parent provides mitochondria, the other does not. There were attempts with more than two sexes, turned out to be too complicated.
Whoa, does this suggest something very sensitive, unstable, and delicate about mitochondria that their preservation must be highly conservative otherwise it could not be a steadily observed thing? How exactly would a fight ensue for the coding of a mitochondria? Are those organelles even created by ribosomes? How exactly are those things synthesized anyways?
Unlike everything else in the cell, mitochondria are not created by the cell nucleus. They are semi-autonomous "cells in the cell". Like, that is their assumed evolutionary origin: a parasite that miraculously became a symbiont. The "outer cell" provides protection and food, the "inner cell" specializes on energy production.
So what happens when a cell wants to become two is that the cell nucleus will (command to) synthesize another copy of all other stuff, but mitochondria just create their own copies by splitting in two.
Now what would happen in sexual reproduction if each gamete would bring their own mitochondria? The "outer cell" would benefit from them living together peacefully, but if a mitochondrion would attack its competitors instead, it would be an evolutionary advantage. Even if it would reduce the probability of the whole cell surviving, as long as the chance of the cell surviving is greater than 50%, it is profitable for a mitochondrion to attack its competitors, because it will leave twice as many descendants if it wins. This would lead to arms race between mitochondria, and the cell would pay the costs.
Except, there is this neat trick when the cell creates two types of gametes: those with mitochondria (i.e. female) and those without (i.e. male). Then there is no internal battle after joining.
A few plants tried it with more than two sexes, where the rule was generally "any two individuals from different sexes can reproduce", and for each combination of sexes they knew which one provides the mitochondria and which does not. But most of nature settled on two sexes.
So what happens when a cell wants to become two is that the cell nucleus will (command to) synthesize another copy of all other stuff, but mitochondria just create their own copies by splitting in two.
Now what would happen in sexual reproduction if each gamete would bring their own mitochondria? The "outer cell" would benefit from them living together peacefully, but if a mitochondrion would attack its competitors instead, it would be an evolutionary advantage. Even if it would reduce the probability of the whole cell surviving, as long as the chance of the cell surviving is greater than 50%, it is profitable for a mitochondrion to attack its competitors, because it will leave twice as many descendants if it wins. This would lead to arms race between mitochondria, and the cell would pay the costs.
Except, there is this neat trick when the cell creates two types of gametes: those with mitochondria (i.e. female) and those without (i.e. male). Then there is no internal battle after joining.
A few plants tried it with more than two sexes, where the rule was generally "any two individuals from different sexes can reproduce", and for each combination of sexes they knew which one provides the mitochondria and which does not. But most of nature settled on two sexes.
Without sexual reproduction, you are limited to cloning + random mutation at each generation to generate diversity. This generates fast-growing, homogeneous populations which get wiped out as a group when circumstances change to no longer favor them.
Sexual reproduction lets you grab non-harmful mutations from another genetic lineage en masse at each and every generation. This means that when circumstances change you are far more likely to have at least one offspring which can adapt to the new situation.
Because it can take hundreds of generations for helpful mutations to appear, and changing circumstances can wipe out an entire homotype, the advantages of preserving genetic diversity outweigh the costs.
Sexual reproduction lets you grab non-harmful mutations from another genetic lineage en masse at each and every generation. This means that when circumstances change you are far more likely to have at least one offspring which can adapt to the new situation.
Because it can take hundreds of generations for helpful mutations to appear, and changing circumstances can wipe out an entire homotype, the advantages of preserving genetic diversity outweigh the costs.
aha, thank you. The compared to alternatives would be cloning, no change, or small and slow perturbations. Sexual reproduction === intentional mass mutations, that's such a clear way to conceive of it all. It's the genes that matter here at the end of the day. Wow
> In case anyone thinks that preference is cultural, it's not. It exists across every culture on the planet
Could you provide a cite for this? It's an extraordinary claim. It doesn't match with my understanding of some historical cultures.
Could you provide a cite for this? It's an extraordinary claim. It doesn't match with my understanding of some historical cultures.
> It's an extraordinary claim.
The claim that the being who ends up exerting significant effort and time to reproduction (effort that immediately and directly eats into the non-reproductive economic output) is looking for a mate with enough spare (earning/capital) capacity to support themselves and a family is extraordinary?
The claim that the being who ends up exerting significant effort and time to reproduction (effort that immediately and directly eats into the non-reproductive economic output) is looking for a mate with enough spare (earning/capital) capacity to support themselves and a family is extraordinary?
The claim that I think is "extraordinary" is that a focus on specifically income is found in "every culture on the planet."
Is this really true of the Sentinelese, an indigenous culture in the Indian ocean? Maybe if we define "income" in some funny way. There's a long history of "big man" cultures in anthropology, wherein authority and persuasion are more important that direct "income."
But, then, "income" is so tied to the modern capitalist framework that it's hard to even talk about this sort of thing, which is really my main point.
Is this really true of the Sentinelese, an indigenous culture in the Indian ocean? Maybe if we define "income" in some funny way. There's a long history of "big man" cultures in anthropology, wherein authority and persuasion are more important that direct "income."
But, then, "income" is so tied to the modern capitalist framework that it's hard to even talk about this sort of thing, which is really my main point.
"Income" is just a proxy for providing resources.
It's simply unreasonable to assume that the Sentinelese men who are best at procuring food/resources/etc aren't more desirable than their peers. Social status is likely a factor as well.
Authority is often derived in tribal cultures from being the best hunter/warrior, or being the son of the best fighter if the tribe has a monarchal structure of leadership transfer.
Not that any of us know, because the Sentanalese will kill us on site as trespassers if we show up on their islands.
It's simply unreasonable to assume that the Sentinelese men who are best at procuring food/resources/etc aren't more desirable than their peers. Social status is likely a factor as well.
Authority is often derived in tribal cultures from being the best hunter/warrior, or being the son of the best fighter if the tribe has a monarchal structure of leadership transfer.
Not that any of us know, because the Sentanalese will kill us on site as trespassers if we show up on their islands.
Right, I think your hypothesis is reasonable. I think your degree of confidence in it, though, is not. I don't think you have evidence for it that stretches as far as "every culture on the planet."
Could you specify which cultures you are referring to?
[deleted]
This is a common misconception. Equality means that both sexes have options. It means offering (but not forcing) men to take paternity leave, so that the family can bond as a unit. It means offering flexible work options for everyone. I’ve not met many women who want to work the stereotypical 60+ hour weeks with a stay-at-home partner that comes with being ‘successful’. We want to raise families and have careers on our terms. But the modern workplace and economy isn’t set up that way, in the US at least.
But no one is an exact copy of anybody. I am a woman who never ever wanted to be a stay-at-home mom, and I'm not, and that's great. I have a husband who did a 4-day week to spend three days with his kid, and that's great. Does that make him a woman or me a man? No, that's ridiculous. Does me having a STEM career make me a man? No, also ridiculous. This "equality means everyone is the same" thing is ridiculously straw-man-y.
You know what leads to equity, rather than equality, and actually addresses some of the structural concerns the GP raises? Health care that allows for healthy pregnancies; time off that allows for healthy pregnancies and babyhood and recovery; and time off for all caretakers, whatever their gender may be. My husband used FMLA to care for his kid and now will use it to care for his parents. Give people support and they will do what is best for their families. All this worry about who is an exact copy of who is in general a desire to start an ideological fight in order to avoid taking any substantive action that will help anyone.
You know what leads to equity, rather than equality, and actually addresses some of the structural concerns the GP raises? Health care that allows for healthy pregnancies; time off that allows for healthy pregnancies and babyhood and recovery; and time off for all caretakers, whatever their gender may be. My husband used FMLA to care for his kid and now will use it to care for his parents. Give people support and they will do what is best for their families. All this worry about who is an exact copy of who is in general a desire to start an ideological fight in order to avoid taking any substantive action that will help anyone.
Big capitalist here. I agree completely. The reason I'm a millionaire instead of a billionaire is that my first priority was always to have a stable family and marriage. I noticed all the billionaires seemed to go through a few wives before settling down. Didn't like what that did to the children, or what I imagined it might have done. This kept me out of SV (and in much more, at the time, stable and family oriented Microsoft country).
If becoming a billionaire or not was simply a matter of choice for you I’m surprised you couldn’t figure out a way to do it without running through wives.
Sarcasm noted. As I’m sure you can tell, I’m not that smart. But I figured out I could do if I worked hard enough and smart enough to get the fuck out of the neighborhood/family I lived in and never get abused or beaten again. I managed that much.
I’ve done in-depth studies of successful people since I was a young kid, and the richest ones simply didn’t seem to have time for family. You could probably crack that nut. I can’t. I have a house and a farm and a family close to me, however flawed. I’ll take it.
I’ve done in-depth studies of successful people since I was a young kid, and the richest ones simply didn’t seem to have time for family. You could probably crack that nut. I can’t. I have a house and a farm and a family close to me, however flawed. I’ll take it.
Have you considered that going through wives might have more to do with how divorcing HNW individuals is a perverse incentive created by the legal system rather than a fault of the individuals in question? In your marriage, how do you hedge against that?
Elon has six kids, so can you.
It's really housing and then money only as a prerequisite to that.
To start a family you need somewhere to live. When housing costs are insane you need crazy money to afford it, so everything becomes about money.
To start a family you need somewhere to live. When housing costs are insane you need crazy money to afford it, so everything becomes about money.
It's ridiculous how often people repeat this because they want to live in expensive areas. You don't really have to do that.
I'm sure most of the people working in Tech in the Bay Area could go get a job at some firm in Cincinnati, with substantially lower COL. Of course, they would have a substantially lower salary as well, probably low enough to make the Bay Area the better option economically, even including the high COL.
Of course, that doesn't mean we can't lower the COL of the Bay Area! Make Silicon Valley as dense as Tokyo, and I assure you rents will fall.
Of course, that doesn't mean we can't lower the COL of the Bay Area! Make Silicon Valley as dense as Tokyo, and I assure you rents will fall.
See, you're looking purely in terms of financial economics.
But, just as there are other forms of wealth than financial wealth, there are other forms of economics, like social economics.
Your decision to take the XX% improved pay in the higher COL area surely will improve your balance sheet over a decade.
But what will your peers look like after that decade? Will they be a bunch of 40yo millionaire single people all secretly worried that they took a bad tradeoff?
Will the dating pool be full of careerist greedy types? Or family-focused types?
I've lived all over the US, and can't recommend enough making actual sacrifices for family. As in, yes, less 401k contribution this year, but I get a house proper for raising children and a stay-at-home wife that is extremely happily homeschooling our brood.
So funny, too: Building intergenerational capital for your family is now easier in low CoL areas, because the sacrifices imposed upon children raised in high COL areas are arguably much more damaging than them having smaller college funds.
(specifically: dual-income requirement means less parental time, plus high COL areas have spent the past decade making their schools less competitive in order to eradicate, for one example, the horrid specter of white supremacy from the math classroom, where it has loomed large for generations, apparently, which makes the "but the schools" argument basically irrelevant).
Can't recommend enough: Move to the country, homeschool your kids, spend as much time as possible with them.
Finally, basically the very most common deathbed confession is guilt regarding prioritizing work over family.
Do you actually care about regret-minimization? Or do you really truly care about buying baubles and ensuring your children are just as entranced with the rat race as you and all your peers are? If the latter, stay in SF!
But, just as there are other forms of wealth than financial wealth, there are other forms of economics, like social economics.
Your decision to take the XX% improved pay in the higher COL area surely will improve your balance sheet over a decade.
But what will your peers look like after that decade? Will they be a bunch of 40yo millionaire single people all secretly worried that they took a bad tradeoff?
Will the dating pool be full of careerist greedy types? Or family-focused types?
I've lived all over the US, and can't recommend enough making actual sacrifices for family. As in, yes, less 401k contribution this year, but I get a house proper for raising children and a stay-at-home wife that is extremely happily homeschooling our brood.
So funny, too: Building intergenerational capital for your family is now easier in low CoL areas, because the sacrifices imposed upon children raised in high COL areas are arguably much more damaging than them having smaller college funds.
(specifically: dual-income requirement means less parental time, plus high COL areas have spent the past decade making their schools less competitive in order to eradicate, for one example, the horrid specter of white supremacy from the math classroom, where it has loomed large for generations, apparently, which makes the "but the schools" argument basically irrelevant).
Can't recommend enough: Move to the country, homeschool your kids, spend as much time as possible with them.
Finally, basically the very most common deathbed confession is guilt regarding prioritizing work over family.
Do you actually care about regret-minimization? Or do you really truly care about buying baubles and ensuring your children are just as entranced with the rat race as you and all your peers are? If the latter, stay in SF!
This is a fantastic point I don't think I've ever seen brought up before. I'll need to think on this.
I've done the math with my Midwestern salary and I still come out ahead in the Midwest on average. Yes, you're looking at it all economically, disregarding culture, quality of life, access to nature, family, etc, but even economically, good schools are cheaper here, cultural events are cheaper here, college is cheaper here, day care is cheaper here. That's why a lot of people do move away from the Bay when they've got kids to raise.
Your own personal COL adjustment is what matters.
If you are happy living in a rented room and you like to order your food in bulk over the internet, the high-cost city will be a better deal. The 10x higher cost of housing isn't much for your rented room, the 2x cost of most things is avoided, and the 2x increase in salary can go toward ordering more stuff on the internet.
If you want some room to spread out, that 10x higher cost of housing will destroy your finances. The 2x higher salary doesn't come close to making up the difference.
I know a San Francisco native who left. On an ordinary developer salary, he bought 11 acres of land. He has sheep, because he likes sheep, I guess. He can even shoot an AR-15 in his yard. Just how much would it cost to get that in his native San Francisco? What salary would be needed? Do normal developers get that salary? (for calculation purposes, you can skip the lobbying effort)
Scaling down a bit, I'm also a Bay Area native who left. (at age 9 though) My house is 3109 square feet on 0.39 acres, just 0.9 miles from the ocean. How much would that run? My food costs are high already, due to a huge family, recently about $48,000 per year. That would double. What kind of salary would I need to get this? Is it normal for a developer?
If you are happy living in a rented room and you like to order your food in bulk over the internet, the high-cost city will be a better deal. The 10x higher cost of housing isn't much for your rented room, the 2x cost of most things is avoided, and the 2x increase in salary can go toward ordering more stuff on the internet.
If you want some room to spread out, that 10x higher cost of housing will destroy your finances. The 2x higher salary doesn't come close to making up the difference.
I know a San Francisco native who left. On an ordinary developer salary, he bought 11 acres of land. He has sheep, because he likes sheep, I guess. He can even shoot an AR-15 in his yard. Just how much would it cost to get that in his native San Francisco? What salary would be needed? Do normal developers get that salary? (for calculation purposes, you can skip the lobbying effort)
Scaling down a bit, I'm also a Bay Area native who left. (at age 9 though) My house is 3109 square feet on 0.39 acres, just 0.9 miles from the ocean. How much would that run? My food costs are high already, due to a huge family, recently about $48,000 per year. That would double. What kind of salary would I need to get this? Is it normal for a developer?
> It's ridiculous how often people repeat this because they want to live in expensive areas. You don't really have to do that.
It's not a problem limited to "expensive areas" though it is dramatically worse there as a result of zoning restrictions on top of everything.
It's a problem caused by near-zero interest rates inflating housing prices everywhere.
It's not a problem limited to "expensive areas" though it is dramatically worse there as a result of zoning restrictions on top of everything.
It's a problem caused by near-zero interest rates inflating housing prices everywhere.
When living in an expensive area, one doesn't have to wonder if it's a desirable area. It's obvious it is, look how expensive it is. We copy what others want, a lot, unconsciously.
I have a lot of friends in SF. At least in the tech industry, it seems that the main reason people live in SF despite the significant downsides is for career options and pay. So I'd guess that the SF dating pool is already strongly skewed to people who choose career over all else.
The bay area M/F ratio is extremely skewed and the dating market is extremely competitive - (has way too many men).
I would guess that in cities with high skew (in either direction) this creates a disincentive to staying together for one person in the relationship.
I'd also guess the NIMBYs and extreme housing cost also incentivize delaying things.
If there was a lot of housing supply the financial risk of having kids would be way lower.
I would guess that in cities with high skew (in either direction) this creates a disincentive to staying together for one person in the relationship.
I'd also guess the NIMBYs and extreme housing cost also incentivize delaying things.
If there was a lot of housing supply the financial risk of having kids would be way lower.
As a father who had his first child at 23 years of age, the corporate/SV world is just AWFUL to women who don't want to have to rely on IVF to have kids. And often the worst perpetrators of said awfulness are other women who themselves are delaying having kids. They have sacrificed, and really don't like the women who they view as "not making the same sacrifice".
It's all around just awful to pit human biology against corporate norms.
And the parent commenter you responded to above really hit the nail on the head with the things women's rights activists have prioritized. Because activists are primarily based out of universities and urban centers, they are really pre-occupied with the wants/needs of 20 something women, and could give two shits about things outside of landing that sweet job at Google.
The effect on our society is insane. It's basically incredibly common now to encounter a stereotype:
The couple in their 40s with twins, often born premature, a consequence of IVF technology leading to incredibly high rates of multiple births.
My brother and I are identical twins, born before IVF was remotely affordable. Twins used to be rare. Now they are everywhere, and fit a certain demographic. It's absolutely twisted and toxic that workplace norms and cutthroat competition in said workplace have been allowed to remain static, and demanded that humans delay reproduction.
What a testament to how absolutely corrupt the feminist movement is that it looked at the Don Draper character in Mad Men, and concluded that their mission should be to create female Don Drapers, instead of challenging and upending whether ANYONE would want to be Don Draper.
Edit: Dang and other commenters correctly pointed out that I violated some HN norms in here and also my wording was poor and undermined my point. I'm leaving the above unedited for others to learn from my stupidity, and will clarify here:
I have zero problem with people having kids later in life. I only have a problem with people being FORCED to have kids later in life when they otherwise wouldn't have, due to inflexible and arbitrary corporate norms which were established for male only workplaces. (That forced decision was what I viewed as toxic) I'm a full advocate of women's rights as well, and my frustrations with feminism expressed above were intended to express my view that it didn't go far enough, and "settled", leaving women in a perpetually unfair position compared to men.
It's all around just awful to pit human biology against corporate norms.
And the parent commenter you responded to above really hit the nail on the head with the things women's rights activists have prioritized. Because activists are primarily based out of universities and urban centers, they are really pre-occupied with the wants/needs of 20 something women, and could give two shits about things outside of landing that sweet job at Google.
The effect on our society is insane. It's basically incredibly common now to encounter a stereotype:
The couple in their 40s with twins, often born premature, a consequence of IVF technology leading to incredibly high rates of multiple births.
My brother and I are identical twins, born before IVF was remotely affordable. Twins used to be rare. Now they are everywhere, and fit a certain demographic. It's absolutely twisted and toxic that workplace norms and cutthroat competition in said workplace have been allowed to remain static, and demanded that humans delay reproduction.
What a testament to how absolutely corrupt the feminist movement is that it looked at the Don Draper character in Mad Men, and concluded that their mission should be to create female Don Drapers, instead of challenging and upending whether ANYONE would want to be Don Draper.
Edit: Dang and other commenters correctly pointed out that I violated some HN norms in here and also my wording was poor and undermined my point. I'm leaving the above unedited for others to learn from my stupidity, and will clarify here:
I have zero problem with people having kids later in life. I only have a problem with people being FORCED to have kids later in life when they otherwise wouldn't have, due to inflexible and arbitrary corporate norms which were established for male only workplaces. (That forced decision was what I viewed as toxic) I'm a full advocate of women's rights as well, and my frustrations with feminism expressed above were intended to express my view that it didn't go far enough, and "settled", leaving women in a perpetually unfair position compared to men.
Your comment would be a lot more effective if it didn't suggest that women's rights activists only care about landing jobs at Google and are "absolutely corrupt". The sentences linking identical twins to "twisted and toxic" are also weird.
There are some kernels of insight there, but this is not a remotely accurate characterization of any of the women's rights activists I have ever met, and it largely comes across to me as paternalistic victim-blaming.
20-something feminist activists have limited power and influence, and are not responsible for toxic workplace culture in industries dominated by middle-aged men.
There are some kernels of insight there, but this is not a remotely accurate characterization of any of the women's rights activists I have ever met, and it largely comes across to me as paternalistic victim-blaming.
20-something feminist activists have limited power and influence, and are not responsible for toxic workplace culture in industries dominated by middle-aged men.
I’m a twin. How you read that as me calling twins twisted and toxic is rather confusing to me. It was obvious that I was referring to the system that forces these delays in reproduction.
It comes across as «I am a twin and it's horrible that other kids are forced to be twins.»
And «I had my kid at age 23, and it is 'twisted and toxic' that other parents delay having children until their mid 30s. They should do what I did.»
Neither of which is likely to be your intention, which is why I would recommend rephrasing.
And «I had my kid at age 23, and it is 'twisted and toxic' that other parents delay having children until their mid 30s. They should do what I did.»
Neither of which is likely to be your intention, which is why I would recommend rephrasing.
I appreciate your posting about your personal experience but your comment also crosses into an ideological flamewar rant and we don't want those here. Please stick to the former and edit out the latter in the future.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The feminist movement, the one in the 70's, wanted all the things the top commenter wanted. It asked for structural change. Subsidized daycare, wages for housework, better maternity leave, all that stuff.
The pushback from the men in power was enormous, and the eventual compromise was, "Ok, we'll grudgingly let you work in our companies, as long as you accept worse treatment, lower wages -- and most importantly, always pretend to be little men."
This isn't the fault of "the feminists." This is a bum deal that was the best women of the 80's could get, and then they tried to make it work.
The pushback from the men in power was enormous, and the eventual compromise was, "Ok, we'll grudgingly let you work in our companies, as long as you accept worse treatment, lower wages -- and most importantly, always pretend to be little men."
This isn't the fault of "the feminists." This is a bum deal that was the best women of the 80's could get, and then they tried to make it work.
Of more than a dozen friends who moved to Silicon Valley for work/education, all but one left California around the time they started their families. The impression I get is that they're happy they had a chance to work there for a decade or so and now they're happy to live somewhere else. Silicon Valley sounds like a great place to do many things and it's OK if having a family is not one of those things. I'm not saying it's not possible -- one of my friends is making a go of it. But it does sound like having a family there is playing on Hard Mode.
Contrast that to NYC where most of the folks I know who started families there still work in the city, though some did move a little further out into the suburbs.
Contrast that to NYC where most of the folks I know who started families there still work in the city, though some did move a little further out into the suburbs.
I believe it primarily has to do with cost of living than anything else.
Yes, though salaries are a factor as well.
When I ran the numbers on some offers years ago my estimate was that moving to Silicon Valley would be a financially sound decision if I lived frugally because I'd be less exposed to the high cost of living. But once you start factoring in things like owning a home, childcare, etc the salary premium compared to cities like NYC, Boston, Seattle, Portland, etc just isn't sufficient.
So it makes some sense that the area attracts young people looking to strike it rich but pressures them to leave if they haven't won the startup lottery and still want to have a family.
When I ran the numbers on some offers years ago my estimate was that moving to Silicon Valley would be a financially sound decision if I lived frugally because I'd be less exposed to the high cost of living. But once you start factoring in things like owning a home, childcare, etc the salary premium compared to cities like NYC, Boston, Seattle, Portland, etc just isn't sufficient.
So it makes some sense that the area attracts young people looking to strike it rich but pressures them to leave if they haven't won the startup lottery and still want to have a family.
I am female too and I really don’t relate to this kind of discourse.
If you’re really that into high pressure job and grinding the ladder why would you be so attracted to raising a family as a sahm ? You can’t do everything at once. No one is stopping you from raising children but yourself. Many don’t go for the business route and that’s a respectable choice but of course you can’t have it all. If in the end your fertility is more important than your career then have kids without making a fuss about it. Especially if you know that for some ecologically unreasonable reason you want numerous kids then start early.
Also I’ve seen so many female acquaintances wanting to keep up their old life ambitions and eventually just never go back there because child rearing became more important than anything (and sometimes their sole motivation left in life). How can you be so sure you won’t fall for this ? Especially if you aspire at staying at home for a few years, it seems a higher predisposition to stay in that state forever than when you long for your office job.
Because some manage to do it both and it seems right that they be rewarded for it.
With kids you just have to focus on a few priorities with the time you have left and if it really is software then one will find the motivation to cultivate it and to make it work. Heck we have the perfect job for it you can remote you can freelance you can contribute ... But talking about aspirations not pursued without a kid to be developed while child rearing when you will have even less time sounds like a fantasy to me.
If you’re really that into high pressure job and grinding the ladder why would you be so attracted to raising a family as a sahm ? You can’t do everything at once. No one is stopping you from raising children but yourself. Many don’t go for the business route and that’s a respectable choice but of course you can’t have it all. If in the end your fertility is more important than your career then have kids without making a fuss about it. Especially if you know that for some ecologically unreasonable reason you want numerous kids then start early.
Also I’ve seen so many female acquaintances wanting to keep up their old life ambitions and eventually just never go back there because child rearing became more important than anything (and sometimes their sole motivation left in life). How can you be so sure you won’t fall for this ? Especially if you aspire at staying at home for a few years, it seems a higher predisposition to stay in that state forever than when you long for your office job.
Because some manage to do it both and it seems right that they be rewarded for it.
With kids you just have to focus on a few priorities with the time you have left and if it really is software then one will find the motivation to cultivate it and to make it work. Heck we have the perfect job for it you can remote you can freelance you can contribute ... But talking about aspirations not pursued without a kid to be developed while child rearing when you will have even less time sounds like a fantasy to me.
> If you’re really that into high pressure job and grinding the ladder why would you be so attracted to raising a family as a sahm ? You can’t do everything at once. No one is stopping you from raising children but yourself. Many don’t go for the business route and that’s a respectable choice but of course you can’t have it all. If in the end your fertility is more important than your career then have kids without making a fuss about it. Especially if you know that for some ecologically unreasonable reason you want numerous kids then start early.
The problem with this viewpoint is that, at scale, having kids isn't just an individual "life choice." It's a basic requirement for a sustainable human society. People have to have 2.1 kids on average in order for society to keep existing. We're well below that in almost the entire developed world. That means the most liberal societies in the world, where women can choose to pursue careers and business, are also not sustainable and can't continue to exist without importing people from societies with traditional gender roles. In other words, they currently exist only due to a sort of arbitrage and aren't viable in the steady state the way they're structured now.
If you think liberal societies are a good thing, then we really need to figure out a way to allow women to have careers and also children. It's not "having it all." It's about pursuing two pillars of life that for most people are both necessary: work, and family. We should be thinking about it in the same way as we design buildings to have sufficient bathrooms for everyone--as a biological fact of life that we must accommodate.
The problem with this viewpoint is that, at scale, having kids isn't just an individual "life choice." It's a basic requirement for a sustainable human society. People have to have 2.1 kids on average in order for society to keep existing. We're well below that in almost the entire developed world. That means the most liberal societies in the world, where women can choose to pursue careers and business, are also not sustainable and can't continue to exist without importing people from societies with traditional gender roles. In other words, they currently exist only due to a sort of arbitrage and aren't viable in the steady state the way they're structured now.
If you think liberal societies are a good thing, then we really need to figure out a way to allow women to have careers and also children. It's not "having it all." It's about pursuing two pillars of life that for most people are both necessary: work, and family. We should be thinking about it in the same way as we design buildings to have sufficient bathrooms for everyone--as a biological fact of life that we must accommodate.
> This viewpoint is common, but doesn't scale. Having kids isn't a "life choice." It's a basic requirement for a sustainable human society.
I disagree, I think in the countries and social spheres where this is an _actual_ choice for women, it is very much a "life choice" (because the rest of the world makes more than enough children to resolve the issues of "sustainable human society"). When we'll get to a point where world wide population growth drops below 2.1 factor, maybe then we can start reconsidering this policy.
And that said, longer term, what is not sustainable is a continuing growth of population, not reducing it. Yes I realize reducing population invalidates many things currently supporting our civilization but having to deal with the pain of those changes seems much better than dealing with the issues of an overpopulated planet.
I disagree, I think in the countries and social spheres where this is an _actual_ choice for women, it is very much a "life choice" (because the rest of the world makes more than enough children to resolve the issues of "sustainable human society"). When we'll get to a point where world wide population growth drops below 2.1 factor, maybe then we can start reconsidering this policy.
And that said, longer term, what is not sustainable is a continuing growth of population, not reducing it. Yes I realize reducing population invalidates many things currently supporting our civilization but having to deal with the pain of those changes seems much better than dealing with the issues of an overpopulated planet.
> I disagree, I think in the countries and social spheres where this is an _actual_ choice for women, it is very much a "life choice" (because the rest of the world makes more than enough children to resolve the issues of "sustainable human society"). When we'll get to a point where world wide population growth drops below 2.1 factor, maybe then we can start reconsidering this policy.
That's not really a rebuttal to my point--just an assertion that we should take advantage of the arbitrage opportunity while we can. It tells us nothing about what a sustainable liberal society looks like.
And the fact is that the arbitrage opportunity won't last long. If you're 30-something, the world population is currently projected to start declining within your lifetime.
That's not really a rebuttal to my point--just an assertion that we should take advantage of the arbitrage opportunity while we can. It tells us nothing about what a sustainable liberal society looks like.
And the fact is that the arbitrage opportunity won't last long. If you're 30-something, the world population is currently projected to start declining within your lifetime.
There has been various research about Earth's carrying capacity. The numbers are controversial but it shouldn't be controversial that there is _some_ limit.
I think we are going to have to adapt to a post-growth world. Or maybe things will grow in other ways. I am not worried about declining birth rates. It's not like we are heading for a "Children of Men" scenario. The population will stabilize before it goes to zero. Or maybe we will just grow people in vats.
I think we are going to have to adapt to a post-growth world. Or maybe things will grow in other ways. I am not worried about declining birth rates. It's not like we are heading for a "Children of Men" scenario. The population will stabilize before it goes to zero. Or maybe we will just grow people in vats.
> I think we are going to have to adapt to a post-growth world. Or maybe things will grow in other ways. I am not worried about declining birth rates. It's not like we are heading for a "Children of Men" scenario.
I'm not talking about endless growth. I'm talking about simply maintaining existing societies. The fertility rate in South Korea is now below 1. That's a society that's basically gone within three generations.
> The population will stabilize before it goes to zero.
Right--so what does society and culture look like then?
> Or maybe we will just grow people in vats.
We can't even fix male pattern baldness for god's sake.
I'm not talking about endless growth. I'm talking about simply maintaining existing societies. The fertility rate in South Korea is now below 1. That's a society that's basically gone within three generations.
> The population will stabilize before it goes to zero.
Right--so what does society and culture look like then?
> Or maybe we will just grow people in vats.
We can't even fix male pattern baldness for god's sake.
>Right--so what does society and culture look like then?
Culture and societies change. No one can predict the future. If the population of South Korea goes down to 49 million (from 50 million today), why does that automatically mean that they will lose their culture?
>We can't even fix male pattern baldness for god's sake.
I'm sure we will fix that before the population gets to zero!
Culture and societies change. No one can predict the future. If the population of South Korea goes down to 49 million (from 50 million today), why does that automatically mean that they will lose their culture?
>We can't even fix male pattern baldness for god's sake.
I'm sure we will fix that before the population gets to zero!
> We can't even fix male pattern baldness for god's sake.
Elon Musk used to be bald. Now he’s not.
Elon Musk used to be bald. Now he’s not.
> Or maybe we will just grow people in vats.
Who will raise the people who were made in vats? Which is the real problem here, not who reproduces.
Who will raise the people who were made in vats? Which is the real problem here, not who reproduces.
Pregnancy and childbirth are not wonderful experiences and there would definitely be an uptick in children per woman if you could get a baby without carrying it inside you for nine months and then pushing it out. How large the uptick would be I don’t know.
> Pregnancy and childbirth are not wonderful experiences
I would say it depends. My wife would not want to miss it. Especially her first birth was indeed a wonderful experience. The second was too fast but still a wonderful experience.
Why children per woman? In such a world where humans grow in vats, it would be children per person...
I would say it depends. My wife would not want to miss it. Especially her first birth was indeed a wonderful experience. The second was too fast but still a wonderful experience.
Why children per woman? In such a world where humans grow in vats, it would be children per person...
It's not about population, it's about culture.
The rest of the world's birth rate is pretty low too by now. Only Africa has a high birth rate.
But you can work and have kids. The problem is the expectation of being on track for (or offered back after years of hiatus) a top career while taking years off to raise childen is unrealistic.
Especially when there are other women (or people actually) looking for the same professionnal success while minimizing the impact of bearing (the only exclusively female element in this matter, note) and raising children on their careers as much as possible.
All I meant is of course you will be penalized for taking years off when some people (even of the same sex and with the same supposed disadvantages) don't.
Especially when there are other women (or people actually) looking for the same professionnal success while minimizing the impact of bearing (the only exclusively female element in this matter, note) and raising children on their careers as much as possible.
All I meant is of course you will be penalized for taking years off when some people (even of the same sex and with the same supposed disadvantages) don't.
Steady states are the exception in nature, not the rule.
It's quite normal to have a population that increases exponentially, hits resource limits, and then decreases rapidly. (This was like literally 1/3 of my calculus class - it's a pretty classic example for coupled partial differential equations.) Eventually the population declines enough that the resource limits no longer apply, and people start having babies again. Population isn't a monolithic concept: there will always be some women who have children regardless of their incentives.
I'll just be happy if we can get there without war, famine, pestilence, and death, which are the normal results when a society hits resource limits.
It's quite normal to have a population that increases exponentially, hits resource limits, and then decreases rapidly. (This was like literally 1/3 of my calculus class - it's a pretty classic example for coupled partial differential equations.) Eventually the population declines enough that the resource limits no longer apply, and people start having babies again. Population isn't a monolithic concept: there will always be some women who have children regardless of their incentives.
I'll just be happy if we can get there without war, famine, pestilence, and death, which are the normal results when a society hits resource limits.
So your... plan... is to wait for Western civilization to fall, and have the survivors return to traditional society amongst the abandoned buildings of the dead empire?
Your best case scenario is population collapse, but to do it without disease or conflict? Just everyone peacefully getting old and dying without having children?
Your best case scenario is population collapse, but to do it without disease or conflict? Just everyone peacefully getting old and dying without having children?
If we really can get it without war or disease, why not? People will be able to afford houses again. Wages will go up. Inequality will probably decrease, at the cost of making the rich people much less rich. Maybe we'll even get some semblance of community again. Aren't these all the things that people on both sides of the political spectrum are asking for?
Oftentimes, what's good for the empire isn't good for the citizens of the empire. So yeah, I'm happy to leave behind the wreckages of a dead empire if it means more for the people in that empire.
Unfortunately, I'm guessing that we'll get the war, or the pandemic, or both. That's how things have historically ended.
Oftentimes, what's good for the empire isn't good for the citizens of the empire. So yeah, I'm happy to leave behind the wreckages of a dead empire if it means more for the people in that empire.
Unfortunately, I'm guessing that we'll get the war, or the pandemic, or both. That's how things have historically ended.
I think the general demographic thesis on human population peaking relatively soon is that it comes from people voluntarily having fewer kids as conditions improve a la the demographic transition model. There’s no expectation that we hit earths carrying capacity
A steady indoor temperature of 68-72F is also not part of nature, but people get pretty grumpy if it is not the case.
Human populations (and pretty much all populations of complex life where predation is not a significant cause of death) follow logistic growth trends. Sudden population collapses are not normal in nature.
In the grand scheme of things we don't have a sudden population collapse. Fertility rates are at about 1.7-1.8 in the developed world, and we've got population momentum up till about 9B people. If current fertility rates continue we'll have about a 10% decline every generation once population momentum exhausts itself, which is pretty typical of a bubble that overshot its logistic growth limit and then is returning to equilibrium. (See eg. the stock market over the last week.)
We have some additional complexities in that a lot of those growth limits are because of the interplay between economics and population. There's plenty more room for humans on earth; there's not more room within major metropolises without triggering our "It's too crowded; better not breed" instincts. But economic forces needed to sustain those high populations promote concentration and crowding.
We have some additional complexities in that a lot of those growth limits are because of the interplay between economics and population. There's plenty more room for humans on earth; there's not more room within major metropolises without triggering our "It's too crowded; better not breed" instincts. But economic forces needed to sustain those high populations promote concentration and crowding.
> If you think liberal societies are a good thing, then we really need to figure out a way to allow women to have careers and also children.
Probably true, but eugenics motivations aside (and if you insist on going there we have egg donation technology), we probably don’t need to figure out a way to make motherhood and a small fraction of the most demanding jobs compatible.
There’s nothing fundamentally unworkable about a world where you can be a unicorn tech founder, big law partner, or Harvard professor or you can have children in your 20s but not both.
Probably true, but eugenics motivations aside (and if you insist on going there we have egg donation technology), we probably don’t need to figure out a way to make motherhood and a small fraction of the most demanding jobs compatible.
There’s nothing fundamentally unworkable about a world where you can be a unicorn tech founder, big law partner, or Harvard professor or you can have children in your 20s but not both.
> we probably don’t need to figure out a way to make motherhood and a small fraction of the most demanding jobs compatible.
I don't think it's really that small of a fraction. It's not just tech founders who are faced with career tracks that have a pressure to perform in the key 25-35 age range.
> There’s nothing fundamentally unworkable about a world where you can be a unicorn tech founder, big law partner, or Harvard professor or you can have children in your 20s but not both.
Insofar as these are the people who become CEOs and politicians, that actually is a problem.
I don't think it's really that small of a fraction. It's not just tech founders who are faced with career tracks that have a pressure to perform in the key 25-35 age range.
> There’s nothing fundamentally unworkable about a world where you can be a unicorn tech founder, big law partner, or Harvard professor or you can have children in your 20s but not both.
Insofar as these are the people who become CEOs and politicians, that actually is a problem.
I agree. Any culture that promotes less children, deliberate or otherwise, would eventually be replaced by a culture that does promote more children.
Except that cultures change over time. And, typically, when cultures evolve they tend to promote less children. For example, population growth in India
is declining as the economic situation is improving (source: https://datacommons.org/place/country/IND?topic=Demographics)
All cultures tend towards replacement rate. But replacement rate for pre-industrial societies with significantly higher infant mortality are much higher.
The problem is that there is overshoot - when you watched half your siblings die young, you don't simply take the doctor's word for it that your kids are all going to grow up strong and healthy. It takes a few generations to adapt. During this period of time, you have excessive population growth, and then even if these people have children only at replacement rate, the population will still increase as the more populous younger cohorts replace the smaller previous cohorts.
Eventually people start having sub replacement rate children as there are just too many people. In theory this is good, but soo too here will there be overshoot. If you were an only child and your parents were only children, it's hard to start having large families. Even if you wanted to, you need to support a lot of older generations, which puts a severe strain on your ability to also have lots of kids. Eventually yes, things will turn around and the population won't go to zero, but decades of population shrinking and the associated economic issues will do a number on the population. India will have to deal with this problem in a century, much of the developed world will have to deal with it a lot sooner.
The problem is that there is overshoot - when you watched half your siblings die young, you don't simply take the doctor's word for it that your kids are all going to grow up strong and healthy. It takes a few generations to adapt. During this period of time, you have excessive population growth, and then even if these people have children only at replacement rate, the population will still increase as the more populous younger cohorts replace the smaller previous cohorts.
Eventually people start having sub replacement rate children as there are just too many people. In theory this is good, but soo too here will there be overshoot. If you were an only child and your parents were only children, it's hard to start having large families. Even if you wanted to, you need to support a lot of older generations, which puts a severe strain on your ability to also have lots of kids. Eventually yes, things will turn around and the population won't go to zero, but decades of population shrinking and the associated economic issues will do a number on the population. India will have to deal with this problem in a century, much of the developed world will have to deal with it a lot sooner.
> All cultures tend towards replacement rate.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109051381...
The heritability of fertility makes world population stabilization unlikely
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109051381...
The heritability of fertility makes world population stabilization unlikely
I don't disagree with your larger point, rayiner, about "figur[ing] out a way to allow women to have careers and also children". But I agree with the GP poster (hycaria) that the top poster (astan?) creates a false dichotomy, that one must either have a high pressure grinding 100-hr-week job or be a SAHM, which are certainly mutually exclusive. Many of us do just work 40-50 hours per week. Further improvements in work-life balance and support for families of all kinds would definitely be good for the US.
I agree 100%. We shouldn't create a dichotomy, we should figure out ways to enable people to do both.
But people can have a career and kids, just not a high-power start up founder career.
And how do you ever fix that? There will always be people willing to not have kids to further their career. Or work 16 hr days. Or never see their family. These are often the people at the top. Do you force them not to do it?
Reminds me of this scientist I worked with. He’d work all day, go home get dinner, come back and work until 9 or 10. He was an internationally known scientist. No way he could do that and have a healthy family relationship.
Now try having a family and competing with this guy?
And how do you ever fix that? There will always be people willing to not have kids to further their career. Or work 16 hr days. Or never see their family. These are often the people at the top. Do you force them not to do it?
Reminds me of this scientist I worked with. He’d work all day, go home get dinner, come back and work until 9 or 10. He was an internationally known scientist. No way he could do that and have a healthy family relationship.
Now try having a family and competing with this guy?
I am not a female, but I'm a dad who quit the industry a year ago so when my wife was pregnant with our first child.
I think what you're missing is the fact raising a child is something that all human beings are biologically engineered to find overwhelmingly fulfilling, yet office environments are not designed with employee fulfillment (or even basic wellbeing) in mind.
Once you become a parent, over time your viewpoint shifts from seeing the baby as an obstacle that gets in the way of other things, to everything else getting in the way of your time with bubs.
I suspect the reason that many of your friends aren't going back to the office is that raising a child is simply more satisfying.
I think what you're missing is the fact raising a child is something that all human beings are biologically engineered to find overwhelmingly fulfilling, yet office environments are not designed with employee fulfillment (or even basic wellbeing) in mind.
Once you become a parent, over time your viewpoint shifts from seeing the baby as an obstacle that gets in the way of other things, to everything else getting in the way of your time with bubs.
I suspect the reason that many of your friends aren't going back to the office is that raising a child is simply more satisfying.
Some people (even women) are impatient to go back to work because being with a toddler all day everyday isn't fun to everyone. Some people simply enjoy their job a lot. Or because reality takes a toll and you prefer to have a nice house and everything money permits even if that means a few less hours per day with your kid. Or the balance of all of this.
> the fact raising a child is something that all human beings are biologically engineered to find overwhelmingly fulfilling
This is very much not a fact, and I really wish society as a whole would stop pretending that absolutely everybody wants to be an actual parent. Then maybe the people who do find parenting fulfilling can do that while those of us that don't can make up for them instead of being pressured into a role that we can't and/or don't want.
This is very much not a fact, and I really wish society as a whole would stop pretending that absolutely everybody wants to be an actual parent. Then maybe the people who do find parenting fulfilling can do that while those of us that don't can make up for them instead of being pressured into a role that we can't and/or don't want.
Fair call. "All" was not the right word to use - although it most people are wired this way.
I guess that word choice was mainly a reaction to the parent's langauge, where she seemed to be suggesting that career success is the be all and end all. It's an idea that was shoved down the throats of my generation (late milennials) by corporate/university propaganda and had to be unlearned painfully.
I guess that word choice was mainly a reaction to the parent's langauge, where she seemed to be suggesting that career success is the be all and end all. It's an idea that was shoved down the throats of my generation (late milennials) by corporate/university propaganda and had to be unlearned painfully.
many don't realize thats what they want until they actually go through with having the kid though
Agree, as another woman. People have had children in many adverse circumstances throughout life: I have friends who grew up in refugee camps, under politically repressive regimes, in real poverty. People make it work as best they can.
You can't do everything at once. It's a simple fact of life. Be a stay at home mom, sure. Be a mom with some daycare. Later on, allow your child to go to school. Make some choices! That's what growing older is about: pruning the tree of possibility so some branches can grow strong.
I am far, far more career-oriented now that I have a kid than before I did. Now I have someone who depends on me financially, who I want to provide for, who I want to be a good role model for. Having a kid flipped a switch in me that is leading me to much more ambitious work. Before the kid, I figured the world was just going to broil slowly and that it didn't particularly matter what I did. Now I have a drive to make a difference for her future life and ensure she'd be taken care of were something to happen to me. And for everyone who's gonna assail me for letting my child spend 23.8% of her waking hours not in my direct presence... well, you do you.
> With kids you just have to focus on a few priorities with the time you have left This focus has been beneficial for me.
You can't do everything at once. It's a simple fact of life. Be a stay at home mom, sure. Be a mom with some daycare. Later on, allow your child to go to school. Make some choices! That's what growing older is about: pruning the tree of possibility so some branches can grow strong.
I am far, far more career-oriented now that I have a kid than before I did. Now I have someone who depends on me financially, who I want to provide for, who I want to be a good role model for. Having a kid flipped a switch in me that is leading me to much more ambitious work. Before the kid, I figured the world was just going to broil slowly and that it didn't particularly matter what I did. Now I have a drive to make a difference for her future life and ensure she'd be taken care of were something to happen to me. And for everyone who's gonna assail me for letting my child spend 23.8% of her waking hours not in my direct presence... well, you do you.
> With kids you just have to focus on a few priorities with the time you have left This focus has been beneficial for me.
You don't understand why people can have multiple, potentially incompatible ambitions, and talk about the major obstacles that exist to achieving them and how to get around them instead of just giving up? That seems like a fundamental limitation in your own understanding of people.
Sometimes I wonder how much of this idea of "maternity = bad" is self-imposed and/or a false impression.
> When I mention it to someone that I want to take time off for a couple years to have children in silicon valley, they look at me as if I'm an alien.
Is this really that common? As an anecdote, a few years ago, my kid's preschool teacher announced she was quitting half way through the school year due to health reasons. When I privately asked if everything was ok, it turned out to be that she wanted to have kids of her own. I was relieved and totally supportive of her decision: everyone ought to have the chance of choosing the life and family they want to have.
I can see how a certain "why would you want kids" attitude might come out from some young folks, but I think it's not so much that they're judging you personally, but more that they are expressing their own preference for not wanting kids at that stage in their life.
As for gap years, I know someone who got into software development relatively "late" in life (coming from the culinary industry and doing occasional freelance web stuff). My mom took some very long gaps and still had no problems working afterwards. The idea that one has to toil without gap years or else be banned from the industry forever is a myth. As you said, I think the mantra "if there's a will, there's a way" is very true.
I also see the shift in priorities over the years being very common, and I don't think there's anything inherently bad about changing one's mind about whether kids are more important or even the reverse (deciding that career work is more fulfilling than being a housewife/husband after all).
> When I mention it to someone that I want to take time off for a couple years to have children in silicon valley, they look at me as if I'm an alien.
Is this really that common? As an anecdote, a few years ago, my kid's preschool teacher announced she was quitting half way through the school year due to health reasons. When I privately asked if everything was ok, it turned out to be that she wanted to have kids of her own. I was relieved and totally supportive of her decision: everyone ought to have the chance of choosing the life and family they want to have.
I can see how a certain "why would you want kids" attitude might come out from some young folks, but I think it's not so much that they're judging you personally, but more that they are expressing their own preference for not wanting kids at that stage in their life.
As for gap years, I know someone who got into software development relatively "late" in life (coming from the culinary industry and doing occasional freelance web stuff). My mom took some very long gaps and still had no problems working afterwards. The idea that one has to toil without gap years or else be banned from the industry forever is a myth. As you said, I think the mantra "if there's a will, there's a way" is very true.
I also see the shift in priorities over the years being very common, and I don't think there's anything inherently bad about changing one's mind about whether kids are more important or even the reverse (deciding that career work is more fulfilling than being a housewife/husband after all).
[deleted]
The problem is that while all you say is true, and we can’t have it all, the media’s message is always that you can have it all. By the time we realize it was all a lie, corporations won even if a person wouldn’t have selected that path.
I agree with much of what you say except that "women have different needs". I would say each person has different needs and to divide into the male/female binary is a fairly restrictive definition of gender as I have come to understand it.
My wife and I have twins a little less than 2 years old, we are both ~35, but we live in rural-ish NH not SV. She has taken the last 2+ years off for the pregnancy and to function as primary caregiver while I continue to work. While I don't feel a need to work (perhaps a "need to project" would be closer) I do feel a need to provide for my kids while being with them as much as possible. As such I have chosen a low-stress, 9-5 SWE role optimizing for family time over career advancement. At least for the foreseeable future.
From what we can tell she seems to be the only woman from her MBA class that has taken so much time off from career to have children. I don't want to speak for my wife but my impression is that she feels torn by desires to have a high-power career and to spend all the time with the kids (though pandemic parenting in NE with no third spaces available means that some days it would be an easy choice). Maybe that is society having an outsize impact on her internal valuation of family rearing, but I am not sure.
The point I am making is that kind of gender bifurcation doesn't fit the mold that I (a cis-gendered, white man) fit so I find it less plausible that a less-represented person would match it either as my "group" [more accurate term requested] has largely set the social norms.
I acknowledge I could be an outlier.
My wife and I have twins a little less than 2 years old, we are both ~35, but we live in rural-ish NH not SV. She has taken the last 2+ years off for the pregnancy and to function as primary caregiver while I continue to work. While I don't feel a need to work (perhaps a "need to project" would be closer) I do feel a need to provide for my kids while being with them as much as possible. As such I have chosen a low-stress, 9-5 SWE role optimizing for family time over career advancement. At least for the foreseeable future.
From what we can tell she seems to be the only woman from her MBA class that has taken so much time off from career to have children. I don't want to speak for my wife but my impression is that she feels torn by desires to have a high-power career and to spend all the time with the kids (though pandemic parenting in NE with no third spaces available means that some days it would be an easy choice). Maybe that is society having an outsize impact on her internal valuation of family rearing, but I am not sure.
The point I am making is that kind of gender bifurcation doesn't fit the mold that I (a cis-gendered, white man) fit so I find it less plausible that a less-represented person would match it either as my "group" [more accurate term requested] has largely set the social norms.
I acknowledge I could be an outlier.
> The point I am making is that kind of gender bifurcation doesn't fit the mold that I (a cis-gendered, white man) fit so I find it less plausible that a less-represented person would match it either as my "group" [more accurate term requested] has largely set the social norms.
I don’t understand this conclusion at all. You just described a fairly standard situation, and then said trying to apply historical understandings of gender don’t work... and yet they fit perfectly within the story you provided.
To me the issue has always been allowing other to define success for you.
If you find success is being a high powered executive who spends 90hrs a week working, then do that, and don’t let someone else tell you that having kids is the only metric of success.
If your definition of success is raising children who are normal humans and can function in society and make it a better place, then do that; and don’t let anyone tell you that success can only be found in working and being valued at ever higher dollar amounts.
Your definition of success is exactly that: YOURS not anyone else’s and you shouldn’t take anyone else’s definition and try to apply it to yourself.
I think most of society’s current problems stem from everyone using some amorphous societal understanding of success that no one has defined, but thinks everyone else knows. You be your best as you understand that to be. That’s the only path to happiness. Trying to conform to some gender philosopher’s definition is a rabbit hole that leads no where good.
I don’t understand this conclusion at all. You just described a fairly standard situation, and then said trying to apply historical understandings of gender don’t work... and yet they fit perfectly within the story you provided.
To me the issue has always been allowing other to define success for you.
If you find success is being a high powered executive who spends 90hrs a week working, then do that, and don’t let someone else tell you that having kids is the only metric of success.
If your definition of success is raising children who are normal humans and can function in society and make it a better place, then do that; and don’t let anyone tell you that success can only be found in working and being valued at ever higher dollar amounts.
Your definition of success is exactly that: YOURS not anyone else’s and you shouldn’t take anyone else’s definition and try to apply it to yourself.
I think most of society’s current problems stem from everyone using some amorphous societal understanding of success that no one has defined, but thinks everyone else knows. You be your best as you understand that to be. That’s the only path to happiness. Trying to conform to some gender philosopher’s definition is a rabbit hole that leads no where good.
Fair point. You are totally right that my description of myself aligns with historical understandings of gender. I was failed to be explicit about my inclusion of my experience of our work/domestic/(implicit and explicit) power balance in my usage. That I "don't feel like I fit" traditional roles definitely contains bias as that is also the view I would like to have of myself.
The reason we appear to have the 1950s responsibility split is my wife sold her business (not HN-levels of success, hence me keeping my job) concurrent with discovering she was pregnant. She didn't have the next thing lined up so she has decided to enjoy being a full-time mother. When she finds the right fit there is a good chance that I will jump to being a full-time parent to support her career aspirations from the domestic side. Presently I do 5 hours of childcare on a normal workday (0600-0900[alone], 1700-1900[with wife]). I would far prefer to do 10 (the entirety of their waking hours).
> To me the issue has always been allowing other to define success for you.
I still find it embarrassingly easy to fall subject to "keeping up with the Jonses" thinking. I hope that ends as some point as I don't want to pass that on to my kids the way it was to me. It sounds like you have gotten over this hurdle so I would definitely like to hear how you did it.
The reason we appear to have the 1950s responsibility split is my wife sold her business (not HN-levels of success, hence me keeping my job) concurrent with discovering she was pregnant. She didn't have the next thing lined up so she has decided to enjoy being a full-time mother. When she finds the right fit there is a good chance that I will jump to being a full-time parent to support her career aspirations from the domestic side. Presently I do 5 hours of childcare on a normal workday (0600-0900[alone], 1700-1900[with wife]). I would far prefer to do 10 (the entirety of their waking hours).
> To me the issue has always been allowing other to define success for you.
I still find it embarrassingly easy to fall subject to "keeping up with the Jonses" thinking. I hope that ends as some point as I don't want to pass that on to my kids the way it was to me. It sounds like you have gotten over this hurdle so I would definitely like to hear how you did it.
"Women have different needs" is both extremely accurate and extremely predictive. Taking issue with the statement because it's not perfectly correct 100% of the time is, at best, exceedingly pedantic.
I should have used the full statement "...and desires" as it is the desires part that I quibble with the most.
If you are mean predictive from the perspective of big data, e.g. differences in search term rates of those that identify as men vs those that identify as women (in as much as search terms represent the modern capture of an individual's needs), maybe. I can believe without presented evidence that there is positive predictive power there and that it is currently being used/exploited.
It is worth calling out that is reductive with the hope that it will trigger a shift in language used to be more inclusive.
If you are mean predictive from the perspective of big data, e.g. differences in search term rates of those that identify as men vs those that identify as women (in as much as search terms represent the modern capture of an individual's needs), maybe. I can believe without presented evidence that there is positive predictive power there and that it is currently being used/exploited.
It is worth calling out that is reductive with the hope that it will trigger a shift in language used to be more inclusive.
You have describe a situation where you and your wife decided on priorities in your life and acted accordingly. You both decided that personal career goals were secondary to raising your kids. It's a mystery to me why this is not seen as normal. Everything involves trade-offs. It's not possible to be present, involved parents and spend 60-80 hours a week on a career. Choose one or the other, and don't complain about how unfair it is.
Unfortunately I just don't think it's a tenable position to assert that women (or men) should be able to take 2-4 years off of work and not be disadvantaged in their career for doing so.
I wholeheartedly support the idea that, as a society, we ought to value childcare/child-rearing and (perhaps monetarily) support those who perform this service. But I don't believe corporations ought to be the ones making a space for that.
I wholeheartedly support the idea that, as a society, we ought to value childcare/child-rearing and (perhaps monetarily) support those who perform this service. But I don't believe corporations ought to be the ones making a space for that.
Genuine question, who should?
The society as a whole seems to be as300's idea - which, in practice, means the government. If parents give up 10% of their career in order to give their kids a better childhood, are we willing to pay to make it up to them? My money is on "no way".
If not that, the only other answer is the parents. Are you as parents willing to give your kids a better childhood at the price of throwing away 10% of your career, with no (monetary) compensation? I suspect, very few. (More will do so with only one parent giving up the years.)
"You can have it all" is a lie. You can't both have a wonderful career, a great marriage, and give your kids all they need from their parents. You can't. What we really need is for people to stop believing that "having it all" is possible, and therefore expecting that someone owes it to them. Instead, people need to prioritize and choose what they want out of the tradeoffs that reality imposes.
If not that, the only other answer is the parents. Are you as parents willing to give your kids a better childhood at the price of throwing away 10% of your career, with no (monetary) compensation? I suspect, very few. (More will do so with only one parent giving up the years.)
"You can have it all" is a lie. You can't both have a wonderful career, a great marriage, and give your kids all they need from their parents. You can't. What we really need is for people to stop believing that "having it all" is possible, and therefore expecting that someone owes it to them. Instead, people need to prioritize and choose what they want out of the tradeoffs that reality imposes.
> You can't both have a wonderful career, a great marriage, and give your kids all they need from their parents. What we really need is for people to stop believing that "having it all" is possible, and therefore expecting that someone owes it to them.
I think the brutal/ultra-competitive work culture is uniquely American - Europe seems to do OK with giving working parents generous amounts of time (and money!) to be with their kids; 4 weeks PTO per year is unthinkable in the US, but I'm sure its a multiplier for good parenting.
I do not know if it is possible to change the work-culture when money is king.
I think the brutal/ultra-competitive work culture is uniquely American - Europe seems to do OK with giving working parents generous amounts of time (and money!) to be with their kids; 4 weeks PTO per year is unthinkable in the US, but I'm sure its a multiplier for good parenting.
I do not know if it is possible to change the work-culture when money is king.
>I think the brutal/ultra-competitive work culture is uniquely American
American work culture is only moderately competitive. Many Asian work cultures are much more competitive than the US, where women taking a break to have children will basically end their career (and indeed this is how many women plan their careers), and paternity leave greater than 2-3 days have only started to show up in the past few years. Most of the drive towards more parent-friendly policies actually come from the government, as they try to stem the tide of low birthrates emptying out the countryside.
American work culture is only moderately competitive. Many Asian work cultures are much more competitive than the US, where women taking a break to have children will basically end their career (and indeed this is how many women plan their careers), and paternity leave greater than 2-3 days have only started to show up in the past few years. Most of the drive towards more parent-friendly policies actually come from the government, as they try to stem the tide of low birthrates emptying out the countryside.
The upside for many asian countries also commonly have multi-generational households/having more than just a core-family living in one home, so grandparents/cousins/siblings can hold the fort.
Four weeks vacation, and 6 months (?) parental leave. Four years is a big reach, even for Europe.
But yes, Europe does much better at this than the US. Can the US culture change enough to give what Europe gives? Maybe, but I'm doubtful.
But until it does, my point remains - in the world we actually live in, you can't have it all. You have to choose between various less-than-what-you-want options.
But yes, Europe does much better at this than the US. Can the US culture change enough to give what Europe gives? Maybe, but I'm doubtful.
But until it does, my point remains - in the world we actually live in, you can't have it all. You have to choose between various less-than-what-you-want options.
One year parental leave in the countries I am familiar with.
Chile has 6 paid months of leave for the mother (it's a law, not subject to the employer).
Not to mention 35-40 hour work weeks.
> Are you as parents willing to give your kids a better childhood at the price of throwing away 10% of your career, with no (monetary) compensation? I suspect, very few.
Literally every single person that has children does this. That covers almost 90% of the population.
Literally every single person that has children does this. That covers almost 90% of the population.
Every single person who has children takes 2-4 years off from work? (as300's original comment, five posts parent to this one.) No, I'm pretty sure that 90% of the population does not do that.
I just don't understand why 2-4 years off work is the ideal. Have you spent 2-4 years with a baby/toddler? The moments of delight are interspersed with poop and boredom and any human would want a break. I think the neo-American ideal of having a single adult human hover over a child non-stop for four years to give them the "best possible childhood" is really f(*&ed up. As a child certainly my parents were important but playing without them, with other kids, out in nature were all highlights! Children are not hothouse plants.
Ahh, fair. I didn't realise that's what he was talking about specifically. I thought he was referring to the (real) monetary losses that come from people shifting priorities away from career and towards family.
No, I'm not saying we compensate people for the opportunity cost for not having kids. I'm saying we compensate them according to the value to society of them having them and spending time raising them.
Depends on how you look at having children I think. If you:
1) See having children as a right and benefit to society, then society should shoulder at least some of the "burden" of it. By providing child care, (paid) maternity and paternity leave etc. Many countries already do this.
2) See having children as a privilege and a choice made by individuals knowing there will be sacrifices in time, finances, career etc. In this case, the individual (or couple) deals with the consequences. In some cases, incentives can align such that companies provide paid leave, but at least right now it's not the norm.
Looking at countries that provide paid leave vs those that don't, the ones that do seems to have a healthier society.
1) See having children as a right and benefit to society, then society should shoulder at least some of the "burden" of it. By providing child care, (paid) maternity and paternity leave etc. Many countries already do this.
2) See having children as a privilege and a choice made by individuals knowing there will be sacrifices in time, finances, career etc. In this case, the individual (or couple) deals with the consequences. In some cases, incentives can align such that companies provide paid leave, but at least right now it's not the norm.
Looking at countries that provide paid leave vs those that don't, the ones that do seems to have a healthier society.
>But I don't believe corporations ought to be the ones making a space for that.
Something of a chicken and egg problem there.
If you want companies to stop talking about gender, you need to get the NYT to stop writing articles about how a gender ratio any lower than 50:50 in any role at a company is proof positive that the company is evil and must be destroyed.
This would require that culture, broadly, stop believing women need to have a formal job. Such cultures exist, but I feel there would be a certain amount of resistance in moving the West to such a model.
Something of a chicken and egg problem there.
If you want companies to stop talking about gender, you need to get the NYT to stop writing articles about how a gender ratio any lower than 50:50 in any role at a company is proof positive that the company is evil and must be destroyed.
This would require that culture, broadly, stop believing women need to have a formal job. Such cultures exist, but I feel there would be a certain amount of resistance in moving the West to such a model.
> This would require that culture, broadly, stop believing women need to have a formal job
No it doesn't, the gender imbalance in one industry can cancel out over all industries.
No it doesn't, the gender imbalance in one industry can cancel out over all industries.
I think the point the commenter above was making was this:
"If women cannot work while simultaneously having/raising children there will always be at least a slight difference in the amount of men vs women in the workforce."
"If women cannot work while simultaneously having/raising children there will always be at least a slight difference in the amount of men vs women in the workforce."
But OP specifically mentions NYT articles saying:
a gender ratio any lower than 50:50 in any role at a company is proof positive that the company is evil
Perhaps the alien look you are getting is because you are in a financial situation where you can afford to take 2-4 years off of work while also being able to afford to live in the Bay Area. I don't think it's a fair assumption that every sleep-deprived working new parent wants to be working.
I strongly agree with this. Personally, I am a Swedish father who works in a typically stressful industry (game development) and I've been able to take a good amount of time off to care for both of my children.
In Sweden doing so is quite normal and an employer is not allowed to object in any way, as long as you give a few months' notice.
For each of my children my wife and I took two months together at birth, then she stayed at home for another ten months while I worked. After that I spent six months on parental leave while she went back to work.
This means our children have each had a year and a half of at least one of us being home with them before they started at daycare. It's been a magical time and I feel blessed to have had that opportunity. Months where every day was built entirely around just playing and learning together.
Of course, you might note that my wife was home for about twice as long as I was. This was definitely a financial decision and shows there's still plenty of room for improvement.
In Sweden doing so is quite normal and an employer is not allowed to object in any way, as long as you give a few months' notice.
For each of my children my wife and I took two months together at birth, then she stayed at home for another ten months while I worked. After that I spent six months on parental leave while she went back to work.
This means our children have each had a year and a half of at least one of us being home with them before they started at daycare. It's been a magical time and I feel blessed to have had that opportunity. Months where every day was built entirely around just playing and learning together.
Of course, you might note that my wife was home for about twice as long as I was. This was definitely a financial decision and shows there's still plenty of room for improvement.
> I wish the world wasn't so male centric, that feminists actually cared about finding structural solutions instead of forcing women to become copies of men to achieve gender parity
What is happening is destroying both men and women in their roles: sure, men can have their great enjoyment at the male and performance centric workplace, but providing for a family is also part of being a man, and it's being ignored. Sexual life of most men is in a strong decline.
Sadly man hating and women hating increased together (according to Google trends), and more and more relationships are just transactional.
What is happening is destroying both men and women in their roles: sure, men can have their great enjoyment at the male and performance centric workplace, but providing for a family is also part of being a man, and it's being ignored. Sexual life of most men is in a strong decline.
Sadly man hating and women hating increased together (according to Google trends), and more and more relationships are just transactional.
Yeah, my mom always rebelled at the feminist push to have women do men's work as the goal (without valuing work women already did). Join the military, kill people etc. I'm 100% for that, but it's crazy that a women doesn't get paid for raising kids, perhaps the most important thing for society and with INCREDIBLE costs (if done badly) and benefits (if done well) to everyone.
What's even more interesting, upvalue work that is traditionally female, and you may see more men drawn to it, staying home, teaching etc.
Instead, those can be thankless jobs from a money standpoint, and only folks who sell their souls into a male centric hellhole of work environments (PhD life is silly, medical residencies are nuts etc) are rewarded and women are told to lean in.
What's even more interesting, upvalue work that is traditionally female, and you may see more men drawn to it, staying home, teaching etc.
Instead, those can be thankless jobs from a money standpoint, and only folks who sell their souls into a male centric hellhole of work environments (PhD life is silly, medical residencies are nuts etc) are rewarded and women are told to lean in.
> it's crazy that a women doesn't get paid for raising kids
Effectively they do get paid. In a marriage, mothers own half their husband's income. Outside a marriage, mothers get child support.
The fact it's not taxed as "pay" is a bonus for mothers, not a downside!
It's weird how the myth persists that mothers "not getting paid" a taxable wage is some kind of negative.
Effectively they do get paid. In a marriage, mothers own half their husband's income. Outside a marriage, mothers get child support.
The fact it's not taxed as "pay" is a bonus for mothers, not a downside!
It's weird how the myth persists that mothers "not getting paid" a taxable wage is some kind of negative.
> Effectively they do get paid. In a marriage, mothers own half their husband's income.
That’s some creative logic. Being a stay at home parent is a full-time job. If the stay at home parent were being paid, they’d...well...be paid. “Effective” payment isn’t helpful to a full time parent raising a child and losing out on wages they would otherwise get at a job that the economy values with a taxable wage.
That’s some creative logic. Being a stay at home parent is a full-time job. If the stay at home parent were being paid, they’d...well...be paid. “Effective” payment isn’t helpful to a full time parent raising a child and losing out on wages they would otherwise get at a job that the economy values with a taxable wage.
So you want the husband to explicitly pay his wife a W2 wage to raise their kids, which just means as a couple they pay more taxes and have less money than before?
I don't see the upside.
I don't see the upside.
No, you’re right that doesn’t make sense, and I wouldn’t be for that. I think government should expand paid time off for family leave, especially in the US.
So if corporate attorney is taking time off to raise a child society should value, and pay, more for that then if a public defender is?
This is a loaded question. "society should value" and "pay more" are separate arguments. By agreeing to the first I'm not agreeing to the second. I think society should value taking time off to raise children, yes. However, I don't think that society should value a corporate attorney doing this more than a public defender doing it. To do so would value raising children unequally. A universal basic income with an additional stipend for child care would be one solution that captures this difference.
Okay, then we are no longer talking about paid time off and we are no longer addressing the trade-offs involved in taking time away from a lucrative career in SV.
Which is fine with me, I don’t think that’s a problem that needs solving but you and others in this thread had implied otherwise.
Which is fine with me, I don’t think that’s a problem that needs solving but you and others in this thread had implied otherwise.
> “Effective” payment isn’t helpful to a full time parent raising a child
? Having room and board for yourself and your child is nothing if not helpful.
? Having room and board for yourself and your child is nothing if not helpful.
Yes, I agree. I don’t see how that ties to the original argument in the thread, though. Presumably a full time parent with a spouse who can provide for both parent and child and who gave up a taxable wage to be a caregiver already had room and board. The room and board comment seems irrelevant to the argument given the context of the preceding comments around forfeiting a taxable wage for the full time job of parenthood.
Child support is intended to cover the expenses of the child - food, clothing, education, medical, etc. It's not meant to pay for the time spent by the custodial parent in actually doing the parenting, nor any sort of "opportunity cost" of not being otherwise engaged in a paying job.
Translated to HN-world: "I'm going work on a FOSS project full-time!" World: "Great; we'll pay for your server! You won't lose a dime!" Me: "Uh, what about the income from the job I gave up?"
Translated to HN-world: "I'm going work on a FOSS project full-time!" World: "Great; we'll pay for your server! You won't lose a dime!" Me: "Uh, what about the income from the job I gave up?"
You can always choose to work and send the child to daycare.
Providing your own daycare instead of working is a lifestyle choice, why does the opportunity cost of that choice have to be shouldered by someone else?
Providing your own daycare instead of working is a lifestyle choice, why does the opportunity cost of that choice have to be shouldered by someone else?
You said "[custodial parents] do get paid ... child support" and I was simply pointing out that this isn't "pay" to said parent in the sense of "compensation for services rendered".
> In a marriage, mothers own half their husband's income.
... and half of asset appreciation, and in some cases (it varies) half of pension.
I will also add that it’s not just mothers. It’s any spouse. I’ve seen successful women come out on the raw end of this deal during divorce.
I mention this not as a grievance, rather just an observation that people who are married, both male and female, are sometimes surprised at asset allocation during a divorce with regards to “passive” investments and business ownership (e.g, a self-owned business that has grown).
... and half of asset appreciation, and in some cases (it varies) half of pension.
I will also add that it’s not just mothers. It’s any spouse. I’ve seen successful women come out on the raw end of this deal during divorce.
I mention this not as a grievance, rather just an observation that people who are married, both male and female, are sometimes surprised at asset allocation during a divorce with regards to “passive” investments and business ownership (e.g, a self-owned business that has grown).
That's a weird contortion of logic. Your point is still that raising children isn't an economically valuable activity, unless you also think that men should be paid somewhere around 2x if they are supporting a stay-at-home mom...
The existence of daycares is proof that people are willing to pay for raising children.
What you're hitting on is that staying home to raise 1-2 kids is economically inefficient compared to working and sending the kids to a daycare, because the daycare can benefit from efficiencies of scale.
What you're hitting on is that staying home to raise 1-2 kids is economically inefficient compared to working and sending the kids to a daycare, because the daycare can benefit from efficiencies of scale.
> it's crazy that a women doesn't get paid for raising kids
Why would women get paid to raise their own kids? You suggest it's because when done well, it has incredible value to society. What is that value to society? It's having functional, productive members. Women already reap the benefits of that by sharing society with other peoples' well raised children.
What I mean to say is that it's a web of mutual benefit. The gap is actually in all the people who don't have children, who are essentially free riders in this scheme, but that is offset by the fact that they pay taxes for things like schools, which they don't themselves consume, and lack of tax breaks that parents receive.
Why would women get paid to raise their own kids? You suggest it's because when done well, it has incredible value to society. What is that value to society? It's having functional, productive members. Women already reap the benefits of that by sharing society with other peoples' well raised children.
What I mean to say is that it's a web of mutual benefit. The gap is actually in all the people who don't have children, who are essentially free riders in this scheme, but that is offset by the fact that they pay taxes for things like schools, which they don't themselves consume, and lack of tax breaks that parents receive.
Also, the world is already overpopulated as it is in my opinion. So not having a kid can be or will be seen as a benefit to society...
The world is not overpopulated - it's that just some (large) corners of it are seemingly incapable of living sustainably (outsized consumption that goes with outsized waste and pollution)
Every human being can value traditional female work (or, more broadly, human obligations to each other) more than money.
But we seem to want to be paid. It's interesting that socializing the payments seems to strike people as more freeing than just social obligation.
This seems like the kind of thinking that eventually requires payments to give up the thrill of killing each other.
But we seem to want to be paid. It's interesting that socializing the payments seems to strike people as more freeing than just social obligation.
This seems like the kind of thinking that eventually requires payments to give up the thrill of killing each other.
> But we seem to want to be paid. It's interesting that socializing the payments seems to strike people as more freeing than just social obligation.
It's not that we _want_ to be paid. It's that we _need_ to be paid, because in order to raise a child you need a stable source of critical things for many years:
- food & water
- shelter (and heat)
- clothing
- waste disposal
If I wanted to take several years entirely away from work to raise a child, I would still have to have those things. How can I afford those things if I am not getting paid?
It's not about valuing _being paid_, it's about valuing the things that are necessary to raise a child.
You tell me how to acquire those things without being paid, and then we can analyze while people value being paid more than the social obligations.
It's not that we _want_ to be paid. It's that we _need_ to be paid, because in order to raise a child you need a stable source of critical things for many years:
- food & water
- shelter (and heat)
- clothing
- waste disposal
If I wanted to take several years entirely away from work to raise a child, I would still have to have those things. How can I afford those things if I am not getting paid?
It's not about valuing _being paid_, it's about valuing the things that are necessary to raise a child.
You tell me how to acquire those things without being paid, and then we can analyze while people value being paid more than the social obligations.
The traditional way of solving this problem is to assume stronger social obligations -- to a spouse, and to family, and sometimes community.
I realize some people won't do that. But we're talking about tech CEOs, so these are people who have some control over their lives. If we re-normalized those social obligations, I think it would be better than transactionalizing it.
And it's not all-or-nothing. I've tried to arrange my life so that I can make enough money, but also spend a lot more of my time doing the things I value more than money.
I realize some people won't do that. But we're talking about tech CEOs, so these are people who have some control over their lives. If we re-normalized those social obligations, I think it would be better than transactionalizing it.
And it's not all-or-nothing. I've tried to arrange my life so that I can make enough money, but also spend a lot more of my time doing the things I value more than money.
> How can I afford those things if I am not getting paid?
From savings or by having another family member work? Combinations of that worked for a very long time in human history.
From savings or by having another family member work? Combinations of that worked for a very long time in human history.
Sure, but that's just shifting who is getting paid or when.
The person I was responding to said that people were obsessed with getting paid versus the social obligations.
I was explaining why people who would want to stay at home might be obsessed about payment. It's a question that must be answered.
You provide some potential answers, but for the vast majority of young Americans these days having enough savings to raise a child by themselves without working is not in any way realistic.
Even for the "have another family work" plan, for many a single income isn't enough to support 2 adults and raising a child. The economy just doesn't make that viable for a large swath of the country.
The person I was responding to said that people were obsessed with getting paid versus the social obligations.
I was explaining why people who would want to stay at home might be obsessed about payment. It's a question that must be answered.
You provide some potential answers, but for the vast majority of young Americans these days having enough savings to raise a child by themselves without working is not in any way realistic.
Even for the "have another family work" plan, for many a single income isn't enough to support 2 adults and raising a child. The economy just doesn't make that viable for a large swath of the country.
If you’re in the latter situation, find work that can done entirely compatibly with raising your family. Open a family daycare for other nearby 2-income households to use. It helps them and helps you. If that violates the premise of “without being paid”, so be it; I’m trying to be pragmatic not pedantic.
> it's crazy that a women doesn't get paid for raising kids
Because she already collects a massive amount of utility associated with raising her own children. The economics of paying people to raise their own children doesn't make sense; the externality allocations are completely wrong. I'm sure you can imagine some of the perverse incentives that come into play.
A woman benefits from raising her own kids (with an associated opportunity cost in employment availability), and the father also benefits from her raising the kids (without the same opportunity cost), so the rational economic strategy is for the father to defray some of the opportunity costs to the mother. This arrangement has existed for at least thousands of years and is called "marriage".
Because she already collects a massive amount of utility associated with raising her own children. The economics of paying people to raise their own children doesn't make sense; the externality allocations are completely wrong. I'm sure you can imagine some of the perverse incentives that come into play.
A woman benefits from raising her own kids (with an associated opportunity cost in employment availability), and the father also benefits from her raising the kids (without the same opportunity cost), so the rational economic strategy is for the father to defray some of the opportunity costs to the mother. This arrangement has existed for at least thousands of years and is called "marriage".
> This arrangement has existed for at least thousands of years and is called "marriage".
Well said.
The modern inclination to tear down tradition institution and then replace them with increasingly more damaging and convoluted schemes is an endless source of confusion to me. It's almost if we've become so arrogant that we assume if something has been done for generations that it must be wrong, which seems like the exact wrong assumption to make.
Well said.
The modern inclination to tear down tradition institution and then replace them with increasingly more damaging and convoluted schemes is an endless source of confusion to me. It's almost if we've become so arrogant that we assume if something has been done for generations that it must be wrong, which seems like the exact wrong assumption to make.
There's also a inclination (not specifically modern) to mythologize traditional institutions. For example, the notion of a medieval knight in full plate.
The modern notion of traditional parenting is about 60 years old. Before that, things were much less straightforward, unless you were rich, because the absense of modern machinery and whatnot meant that that often both parents had to work.
The modern notion of traditional parenting is about 60 years old. Before that, things were much less straightforward, unless you were rich, because the absense of modern machinery and whatnot meant that that often both parents had to work.
> There's also a inclination (not specifically modern) to mythologize traditional institutions. For example, the notion of a medieval knight in full plate.
Indeed, the proverbial rose colored glasses. I think this is where a lot of conservatives get tripped up.
Being willing to make improvements is necessary to avoid stagnation, but it's equally important to remember change is not necessarily improvement (and often isn't).
Indeed, the proverbial rose colored glasses. I think this is where a lot of conservatives get tripped up.
Being willing to make improvements is necessary to avoid stagnation, but it's equally important to remember change is not necessarily improvement (and often isn't).
Hell raising kids in the 60s & 70s is a lot less work. You could send the kids off into the neighborhood to play with all the other kids and only interact with them when they had issues. Otherwise they would rather be out exploring the local woods or streets with all the other kids, and family being around to help out.
Now with the legal necessity of 24/7 adult supervision before they are 12, that is gone and as a result you have helicopter parenting making it a shit ton more work to do.
Now with the legal necessity of 24/7 adult supervision before they are 12, that is gone and as a result you have helicopter parenting making it a shit ton more work to do.
The preponderance of research suggests that modern humans in high-IQ societies are substantially K-overselected. That is, we are investing an irrational amount of resources into a small number of average children when by basically any rational analysis, we should be having more children and putting in much less effort. As you say, part of this is distortion from the legal system.
That’s a pretty narrow interpretation of “marriage” and doesn’t track my experience at all.
Obviously it's an oversimplification, but the point is that marriage nicely handles (among other things) the allocation of child-rearing externalities.
Can you explain to me the utility I get from raising my kid? I'm not really a kid person, you should know up front.
The utility is your kids being raised. For example, it doesn't make sense to pay you to clean your own room. People get pay because they provide value to another person, not because they provide value to themselves.
> Can you explain to me the utility I get from raising my kid
This is deeply instinctive - if you don't feel this, most likely you have been deeply mindfucked by modern society. Evolution, obviously, ensures that you get rewarded with lots of utils for doing the single most important thing you can do from an evolutionary perspective.
I'm not saying you've done anything wrong; this isn't your fault. But just try to imagine someone from a healthy society (in the sense of "the society is not at risk of collapse") asking a question like "what, exactly, do I get out of having children?"
Even in unhealthy societies like ours, if you can convince people to raise children, they almost uniformly report higher life satisfaction (both vs people who don't have children and vs themselves before having children).
This is deeply instinctive - if you don't feel this, most likely you have been deeply mindfucked by modern society. Evolution, obviously, ensures that you get rewarded with lots of utils for doing the single most important thing you can do from an evolutionary perspective.
I'm not saying you've done anything wrong; this isn't your fault. But just try to imagine someone from a healthy society (in the sense of "the society is not at risk of collapse") asking a question like "what, exactly, do I get out of having children?"
Even in unhealthy societies like ours, if you can convince people to raise children, they almost uniformly report higher life satisfaction (both vs people who don't have children and vs themselves before having children).
> it's crazy that a women doesn't get paid for raising kids
Are you suggesting that the father should pay the mother a salary for raising the kids? (Or same thing with the sexes reversed if it's the father raising the kid)
Isn't that just a more formal arrangement of a stay-at-home mother/father? The main difference would be: more financial independence to the stay-at-home party, which is good in my book, but I'm not sure if that's what you're suggesting.
Are you suggesting that the father should pay the mother a salary for raising the kids? (Or same thing with the sexes reversed if it's the father raising the kid)
Isn't that just a more formal arrangement of a stay-at-home mother/father? The main difference would be: more financial independence to the stay-at-home party, which is good in my book, but I'm not sure if that's what you're suggesting.
I believe the proposal is that the government should pay stay at home parents to remain that way, because it is a net benefit to society.
Isn't it economically more efficient to have kids go to daycares (which benefit from economies of scale) and have both parents work and pay taxes?
Of course some people prefer to raise their kids themselves, but that seems more like an expensive lifestyle choice than a necessity.
Of course some people prefer to raise their kids themselves, but that seems more like an expensive lifestyle choice than a necessity.
There are lots of studies showing that being raised by your own parents is far more beneficial than a day care. But as you point out, that's a privilege reserved for the wealthy.
Paying people to be stay at home parents would make it a viable choice for a lot more people. It would also help reverse the trend of the fertility rate dropping below 2.1
Paying people to be stay at home parents would make it a viable choice for a lot more people. It would also help reverse the trend of the fertility rate dropping below 2.1
Please share those studies.
>which benefit from economies of scale
The economy of scale isn't as big as one might like. Child care staff ratios for infants and toddlers are something like 1:3 to 1:4. Between that and the cost of compliance, licensing, insurance, and the inevitable scandals when deployed at scale, (If you have 1 million caregivers, you absolutely will have some number of murders or molestations. Unfortunate when a parent does it to their own child, but A Public Scandal when a government employee does it) you have got to start wondering if it's worth the hassle.
Or you can have mothers take care of their own children. Which has been the default of every human society for tens of thousands of years.
The economy of scale isn't as big as one might like. Child care staff ratios for infants and toddlers are something like 1:3 to 1:4. Between that and the cost of compliance, licensing, insurance, and the inevitable scandals when deployed at scale, (If you have 1 million caregivers, you absolutely will have some number of murders or molestations. Unfortunate when a parent does it to their own child, but A Public Scandal when a government employee does it) you have got to start wondering if it's worth the hassle.
Or you can have mothers take care of their own children. Which has been the default of every human society for tens of thousands of years.
Yeah. Lets become drones and all live in a giant hive. Good plan.
That proposal runs into issues. In particular, the income replacement flavor implicitly suggests that the positive externality of a stay at home parent is exactly equal to the market rate pay in a wholly unrelated profession. That seems very unlikely to be true.
The ARPA past today does have child allowances in it. They're projected to end half of child poverty in the US (because it turns out you can unironically end poverty by giving people money.)
Well, until they run out anyway.
Well, until they run out anyway.
> Join the military, kill people etc
I don't think we should push women into these job, but I don't think we should push men into those jobs either.
> it's crazy that a women doesn't get paid for raising kids
Actually, my kid's day-care provider does exactly this! In a few years, he'll have teachers doing the same.
Valuing work is complicated. Personally, I'd be happy to be a stay-at-home parent if finances made that easy, even if seemed a little thankless. It's not like I feel that the webshit I build all day long is really valuable.
If someone feels undervalued as a stay-at-home parent, it's probably because they feel stuck in that job, either because of lack of education, lack of available child care, or otherwise lack of jobs.
I don't think we should push women into these job, but I don't think we should push men into those jobs either.
> it's crazy that a women doesn't get paid for raising kids
Actually, my kid's day-care provider does exactly this! In a few years, he'll have teachers doing the same.
Valuing work is complicated. Personally, I'd be happy to be a stay-at-home parent if finances made that easy, even if seemed a little thankless. It's not like I feel that the webshit I build all day long is really valuable.
If someone feels undervalued as a stay-at-home parent, it's probably because they feel stuck in that job, either because of lack of education, lack of available child care, or otherwise lack of jobs.
YES! I have been saying this for years, but my fellow PMCs look at me like I have three heads or I'm saying we should all live in a shoe with more kids than we know what do.
Human beings have limited fertility. It sucks, but it's part of life.
Professional life is designed around the idea that you are a male with a female partner who will bear and raise your children while you are attaining your professional credentials and leaving them to their own devices. That is no longer a valid design because we now want female professionals and male involvement in child rearing. Therefore, the system must be changed.
But if you say that every PhD program, medical school, start up, etc. should be designed so that it's NBD to take a year off for having a kid, you're crazy, how would that even work, anyway, have you heard about egg freezing??
Human beings have limited fertility. It sucks, but it's part of life.
Professional life is designed around the idea that you are a male with a female partner who will bear and raise your children while you are attaining your professional credentials and leaving them to their own devices. That is no longer a valid design because we now want female professionals and male involvement in child rearing. Therefore, the system must be changed.
But if you say that every PhD program, medical school, start up, etc. should be designed so that it's NBD to take a year off for having a kid, you're crazy, how would that even work, anyway, have you heard about egg freezing??
> it wasn't automatically assumed that you would be a worse founder or professor or software engineer just because you have 2-4 years you didn't commercially work.
Is there any scenario in life were someone with 2-4 more years of experience (maybe 50% more at that point in time) isn't more valued for their greater experience? What is the difference between a junior and senior engineers salary for instance? A 4 year break is possibly worse in that regard.
Is there any scenario in life were someone with 2-4 more years of experience (maybe 50% more at that point in time) isn't more valued for their greater experience? What is the difference between a junior and senior engineers salary for instance? A 4 year break is possibly worse in that regard.
I think there are two ways to look at the quoted statement. Is person A with 2 years of professional software development experience and a 2 year gap about the same [on average across a large population] as person B who has 2 years professional software development experience and no gap? Person B is slightly more valued by virtue of recency of experience, but 3 months from now, once the rust is knocked off person A, I'd expect them to be basically the same so I'd value them the same in hiring.
Now, is person C who has 4 years of software development experience, no gap, more skilled and capable at software development than person A who has 2 years of software experience and then a 2 year gap or person B who has 2 years and no gap? Absolutely, and I'd expect C to be quite rationally valued more highly in the software development market. Person C has twice as much directly relevant experience at a time in career where the curve is still rising quickly.
Now, is person C who has 4 years of software development experience, no gap, more skilled and capable at software development than person A who has 2 years of software experience and then a 2 year gap or person B who has 2 years and no gap? Absolutely, and I'd expect C to be quite rationally valued more highly in the software development market. Person C has twice as much directly relevant experience at a time in career where the curve is still rising quickly.
I'm pretty biased, but it would depend on the role.
Thinking that parenting is not "experience", or that it has no commercial relevance is (in my opinion) a mistake.
Many roles, I suspect a candidate with 4 years of SWE and 4 years of parenting could be a more valuable team member than a candidate with 8 years of just SWE. Parenting does not universally develop emotional maturity and wider perspectives, but I believe there's a correlation.
Disclaimer: Of course, individual differences swamp any other factor, so always take each person as they come.
Thinking that parenting is not "experience", or that it has no commercial relevance is (in my opinion) a mistake.
Many roles, I suspect a candidate with 4 years of SWE and 4 years of parenting could be a more valuable team member than a candidate with 8 years of just SWE. Parenting does not universally develop emotional maturity and wider perspectives, but I believe there's a correlation.
Disclaimer: Of course, individual differences swamp any other factor, so always take each person as they come.
This conversation seems to be geared towards upper middle class, dual income professionals that usually have $150,000+ household income. It's difficult for me to sympathize and see these issues as more than entitlement.
First, since household income is a combination of the mother and father's incomes, women still have the same household income and spending power as men. The remaining complaint is worse work fulfillment for women. I don't think people are entitled to work fulfillment. It's a minor issue in my eyes. There are advantages and drawbacks to this issue. While mothers have a more difficult time with work fulfillment and climbing the corporate ladder, mothers also have an easier time avoiding the corporate environment and work pressure. Women who don't find fulfillment at work can more easily not work than the equivalent men.
Second, ignoring gender and seeing this from a gender-neutral parent perspective, many of these upper middle class parents are lamenting the tradeoff between living an upper middle class lifestyle and being parents. I don't think there is a problem when upper middle class parents have to downgrade their living standards when becoming parents. I don't think people are entitled to an upper middle class lifestyle.
First, since household income is a combination of the mother and father's incomes, women still have the same household income and spending power as men. The remaining complaint is worse work fulfillment for women. I don't think people are entitled to work fulfillment. It's a minor issue in my eyes. There are advantages and drawbacks to this issue. While mothers have a more difficult time with work fulfillment and climbing the corporate ladder, mothers also have an easier time avoiding the corporate environment and work pressure. Women who don't find fulfillment at work can more easily not work than the equivalent men.
Second, ignoring gender and seeing this from a gender-neutral parent perspective, many of these upper middle class parents are lamenting the tradeoff between living an upper middle class lifestyle and being parents. I don't think there is a problem when upper middle class parents have to downgrade their living standards when becoming parents. I don't think people are entitled to an upper middle class lifestyle.
I don't want to blame this on 'toxic masculinity', but I think there are a lot of men who would make allies for this sort of work if they would stop for a moment and think about what's good for them instead of toeing the party line.
I am deeply convinced that I would be as productive at 32 hours a week as I am at 40, ±5%. And the +5% in particular interests me, because it would say a lot about how we are mishandling creative roles. 32 hours a week not only opens up more diversity in hiring, it also shifts the balance in co-parenting. Yes, I can take Billie to his eye appointment/drop him off at school/buy groceries for dinner on the way home.
I am deeply convinced that I would be as productive at 32 hours a week as I am at 40, ±5%. And the +5% in particular interests me, because it would say a lot about how we are mishandling creative roles. 32 hours a week not only opens up more diversity in hiring, it also shifts the balance in co-parenting. Yes, I can take Billie to his eye appointment/drop him off at school/buy groceries for dinner on the way home.
> but I think there are a lot of men who would make allies for this sort of work if they would stop for a moment and think about what's good for them instead of toeing the party line.
Men are "toeing the partying line?" I must have missed that memo.
Men are "toeing the partying line?" I must have missed that memo.
This is a baseless generalization of men. Men are not an obstacle to a 32 hour work week.
So brave.
Who is working 60-80 hours a week, regularly? Who is running those companies? Who is funding those companies?
Microsoft didn’t change until most of management had kids. Why do you suppose that is?
Who is working 60-80 hours a week, regularly? Who is running those companies? Who is funding those companies?
Microsoft didn’t change until most of management had kids. Why do you suppose that is?
> I wish we had more focus in allowing people to transition back from taking a few years off to raise young kids, and it wasn't automatically assumed that you would be a worse founder or professor or software engineer just because you have 2-4 years you didn't commercially work.
I don't know about you but I'm pretty certain I'd be a worse SWE after 4 years break. Worse than I was before the break and much worse than I'd have been if I didn't take the break (and not just because I would have become better with practice but also because being a good SWE means keeping up with new stuff happening all the time). I personally see it as dropping a level on the company engineering ladder, it's not the end of the world but it's definitely a regression, regardless of the reason for the break.
I don't know about you but I'm pretty certain I'd be a worse SWE after 4 years break. Worse than I was before the break and much worse than I'd have been if I didn't take the break (and not just because I would have become better with practice but also because being a good SWE means keeping up with new stuff happening all the time). I personally see it as dropping a level on the company engineering ladder, it's not the end of the world but it's definitely a regression, regardless of the reason for the break.
that the two genders have different strengths and capabilities
Even the concept of two genders is under attack, let alone whether they have categorical behavior patterns.
Even the concept of two genders is under attack, let alone whether they have categorical behavior patterns.
I don't think these changes are likely because, in my opinion, there is a silent anti-natal movement in Western culture. We have serious issues of an aging population, not enough kids being born to fund social security, etc. and all of our solutions look like bringing people in from other countries with high fertility rates. None of the ideas being tossed around seem to have anything to do with facilitating our own families. There's lots of different sub-sects of the anti-natal movement ranging from the environmental to racial. I have a friend who confided in me she was afraid to have a child because she didn't want to pass on whiteness.
I truly hope you are able to find a partner and employer who supports you in your life decisions.
I truly hope you are able to find a partner and employer who supports you in your life decisions.
"pass on whiteness"? Never heard this phrase before.
Is it surprising? Coca Cola was recently in the news for having corporate training that instructed people to "be less white." People get really caught up in this stuff. She's a victim of an anthropology department at the local state university that is rabidly racist against white people.
Sounds very racist...
> "equitable to mothers"
> "actual equality where we acknowledge that women have different needs and desires".
I can't see any other meaning besides equality of outcomes split across employees by fertility lines regardless of inputs. I think this is unfair. What do you tell someone who did not take X amount of time off when their outcome is equated with someone who did?
Increasing paternity leave for all people doesn't help compensate those who do not have children or don't have this issue. Likewise for subsidizing fertility treatments.
> "actual equality where we acknowledge that women have different needs and desires".
I can't see any other meaning besides equality of outcomes split across employees by fertility lines regardless of inputs. I think this is unfair. What do you tell someone who did not take X amount of time off when their outcome is equated with someone who did?
Increasing paternity leave for all people doesn't help compensate those who do not have children or don't have this issue. Likewise for subsidizing fertility treatments.
It's no less fair than me having to pay school taxes when I have no children. Healthy families and adequate children so the population pyramid doesn't implode (more of an issue in other developed countries than North America) is a pressing issue that affects everyone in those societies. We should pay our part of it.
My town exempts people over 55 from some school parcel taxes. That is because there needs to e a supermajority to pass bonds and exempting people who don’t have school age children makes them much easier to pass. There is a balance that needs to be reached here. If you take this to the extreme, I could have no children and work while my neighbor has 7 children and chooses not to work.
Those 55+ year olds don't realize who are paying their pension and medical care.
Is that the same issue? Public schools are a public good but compensation/equity/advancement is a private one with private benefits. This isn't an issue of preventing financial collapse but as OP says a matter of "career prospects". The justification for that reason as a public good seems a lot less obvious to me than for public education.
> Instead, we talk about how sexism is the biggest problem. Sure, sexism might be annoying, but in the west, it is hardly something that creates a genuine barrier for women.
This is something I've heard a lot of talented young women say at the beginning of their careers. With all due respect... give it a few years.
Sexism plays out in really subtle ways, often unconsciously. After a while though you start to notice patterns: who is hired and promoted, who is mentored and fast-tracked, which people are given high-profile projects and which aren't, who is noticed by leadership and who isn't.
You'll also become more aware of aggregate effects. I.e., "because boss at company X mentored me, I was able to get a senior position at company Y, which paved the way to my current job at fast-growing company Z."
That said, as an individual woman in the industry, devoting much energy to thinking about sexism is a losing game. In fact I think it's better to pretend it doesn't exist and focus on what you can control: the quality of your work, your skills, relationships with coworkers, and so on.
This is something I've heard a lot of talented young women say at the beginning of their careers. With all due respect... give it a few years.
Sexism plays out in really subtle ways, often unconsciously. After a while though you start to notice patterns: who is hired and promoted, who is mentored and fast-tracked, which people are given high-profile projects and which aren't, who is noticed by leadership and who isn't.
You'll also become more aware of aggregate effects. I.e., "because boss at company X mentored me, I was able to get a senior position at company Y, which paved the way to my current job at fast-growing company Z."
That said, as an individual woman in the industry, devoting much energy to thinking about sexism is a losing game. In fact I think it's better to pretend it doesn't exist and focus on what you can control: the quality of your work, your skills, relationships with coworkers, and so on.
I agree and disagree. During my PhD, I had several women friends have kids. It was a great time to have kids other than the poverty thing, if you had a supportive advisor. But what was not great was the lack of structure around it, by which I mean clear and equitable maternity leave policies for people in this sort-of-employee, sort-of-student position which many PhD students in STEM inhabit. But I gotta say I don't see non-feminists advocating for maternity leave for grad students, so part of your post puzzles me.
I was breast-feeding while a professor and needed to pump at work. The nearest lactation space was in a different building, which was somewhat inconvenient, and I had a sometimes-shared office during the day so that wasn't perfect. But it worked out -- mostly because a bunch of, uh, I guess feminists had advocated for lactation spaces to be officially made available across campus (they did a great job, taking a very data-driven approach wrt geography and student/staff density). Before those spaces were available, I know a woman who pumped in a dirty janitorial closet. One day the janitor walked in on her accidentally and everyone was quite embarrassed. But there were no other places available; even the bathrooms didn't have electrical outlets close enough to space to sit to pump.
Heartily agree that destigmatizing gaps and breaks would be great, and there are lots of people working to do that. Maybe it's different where you live compared to where I live. I guess I live in a low-cost-of-living part of the Midwest where we aren't so high-stress about everything. Don't know what it would take to change SV.
For me, I sure as heck outsourced my baby to a nanny 15 hours a week after she was 3 months old. Do you know how nice it is to shower alone and have conversations with adults? Also, it was wonderful for my kid to get some love from someone else; I don't why she should be restricted to only two adult contacts for 16 months of her life. I was very lucky that I was able to teach evening classes and my husband took FMLA one day a week for the first year, so that we both had time to devote to the careers we love as well as the kid we love. I fully support the stay at home moms I know, and I am also thrilled that I did not do that, thanks.
But my message to you is don't be scared of your career prospects w/children. Seriously, don't worry about it. F*&^ anyone who says having kids will derail your career. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Maybe a TBI you sustain during a competitive road biking event or your weekend at Tahoe will derail your career instead. And the higher-paid you are before you have kids, the easier it will be to advance afterward. Life is long. Babyhood and toddlerhood is short. You'll be fine.
I was breast-feeding while a professor and needed to pump at work. The nearest lactation space was in a different building, which was somewhat inconvenient, and I had a sometimes-shared office during the day so that wasn't perfect. But it worked out -- mostly because a bunch of, uh, I guess feminists had advocated for lactation spaces to be officially made available across campus (they did a great job, taking a very data-driven approach wrt geography and student/staff density). Before those spaces were available, I know a woman who pumped in a dirty janitorial closet. One day the janitor walked in on her accidentally and everyone was quite embarrassed. But there were no other places available; even the bathrooms didn't have electrical outlets close enough to space to sit to pump.
Heartily agree that destigmatizing gaps and breaks would be great, and there are lots of people working to do that. Maybe it's different where you live compared to where I live. I guess I live in a low-cost-of-living part of the Midwest where we aren't so high-stress about everything. Don't know what it would take to change SV.
For me, I sure as heck outsourced my baby to a nanny 15 hours a week after she was 3 months old. Do you know how nice it is to shower alone and have conversations with adults? Also, it was wonderful for my kid to get some love from someone else; I don't why she should be restricted to only two adult contacts for 16 months of her life. I was very lucky that I was able to teach evening classes and my husband took FMLA one day a week for the first year, so that we both had time to devote to the careers we love as well as the kid we love. I fully support the stay at home moms I know, and I am also thrilled that I did not do that, thanks.
But my message to you is don't be scared of your career prospects w/children. Seriously, don't worry about it. F*&^ anyone who says having kids will derail your career. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Maybe a TBI you sustain during a competitive road biking event or your weekend at Tahoe will derail your career instead. And the higher-paid you are before you have kids, the easier it will be to advance afterward. Life is long. Babyhood and toddlerhood is short. You'll be fine.
My brother-in-law, a grad student in Seattle, has six months of paternity leave. Not sure how old a practice that is.
I'm not sure what kind of lifestyle would lead to a kid with only two adult contacts - most stay at home parents I've known are involved in multiple social groups aimed at parents and kids, even decades ago my mother took us to playgroups and swapped babysitting time with others to get that time alone.
I'm not sure what kind of lifestyle would lead to a kid with only two adult contacts - most stay at home parents I've known are involved in multiple social groups aimed at parents and kids, even decades ago my mother took us to playgroups and swapped babysitting time with others to get that time alone.
MIT apparently just instituted some parental leave policies for grad students. I go my PhD about ten years ago, and we did not have parental leave policies across departments at that time.
What bugs me about much of the discussion is that many of the commenters here are talking about how ideal a stay-at-home parent (mom) is, while not acknowledging that fact that actually being a stay-at-home parent involves lots of not staying at home and making arrangements so that you can get time not with your kid or doing less intensive supervision of your kid, but still firmly holding that you are more virtuous if you are sitting on your porch drinking wine with other mommies while the kids play, or cleaning up their poop, than if you are in a standup about what's happening this sprint and your kid is in daycare playing with the other kids and having poop cleaned up by someone who gets some money for the task. Something just seems lost in the rhetoric.
What bugs me about much of the discussion is that many of the commenters here are talking about how ideal a stay-at-home parent (mom) is, while not acknowledging that fact that actually being a stay-at-home parent involves lots of not staying at home and making arrangements so that you can get time not with your kid or doing less intensive supervision of your kid, but still firmly holding that you are more virtuous if you are sitting on your porch drinking wine with other mommies while the kids play, or cleaning up their poop, than if you are in a standup about what's happening this sprint and your kid is in daycare playing with the other kids and having poop cleaned up by someone who gets some money for the task. Something just seems lost in the rhetoric.
[deleted]
You mention "destigmatizing time off for parents of both genders", but the rest of your post is structured to imply that time off for new parents is a primarily or exclusively female concern. What are these "different needs and desires"? Men like to spend time with their children too. It seems to me that, rather than any particular unfairness towards women, the issue is that children simply demand a lot of parental resources that are difficult to spare in a competitive marketplace.
Only thing I can right now is pay attention to things like this in the hopes that when/if I can finally get a company off the ground that I can help to implement things like this, and hope/encourage it to pave the way for things the way that Ford's early factories paved the way for the weekend.
I think we can make the world better, it's within our reach if only a few courageous executives would take that initial hit in immediate productivity in the interest of long term sustainability.
I think we can make the world better, it's within our reach if only a few courageous executives would take that initial hit in immediate productivity in the interest of long term sustainability.
> Sure, sexism might be annoying, but in the west, it is hardly something that creates a genuine barrier for women.
HN is to technical discussions what ____ is to social discussions.
Please fill in the blank.
Serious question, and thanks to any serious respondents!
HN is to technical discussions what ____ is to social discussions.
Please fill in the blank.
Serious question, and thanks to any serious respondents!
HN
No need to thank me.
No need to thank me.
> Your whole blog resonates deeply with me. All this corporate grifting and women's empowerment months will do jack shit until we figure out how to make workplaces and lives more equitable for mothers and allowing for gaps, breaks and destigmatizing time off for parents of both genders.
Yes! I wish we could talk about this more openly and honestly. As you note, we still structure workplaces around the needs of married men with stay-at-home spouses, and insofar as women can succeed within that framework, it comes at a real cost to their families. There is a huge gap between how many children women want, and how many they are having: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/upshot/american-fertility...
> As a result, the gap between the number of children that women say they want to have (2.7) and the number of children they will probably actually have (1.8) has risen to the highest level in 40 years. (From 1972 to 2016, men have expressed almost exactly the same ideal fertility rates as women: In a given year, they average just 0.04 children below what women say is ideal.)
It does't make any sense to me to structure career paths to necessarily put the major pressure points during the same time period when biology dictates people will be having kids. Kids really don't require intensive parenting for all that long. Our oldest is already very manageable at 8. I'll only be 45 when our youngest hits that age. At that point, I'll have at least another two decades before retirement, but parenting obligations will go down a lot. I'll be twiddling my thumbs waiting for grandkids, I guess. But I would have preferred to back load the career stuff a bit so the major milestones weren't happening while I was trying to parent toddlers.
Corporate policies such as paying for egg freezing are a really unfortunate example of the male-centric nature of workplaces. I'm sure it's well-intentioned, but in effect the message is that women must shift their biological timeline to accommodate the workplace.
Not only that, but egg freezing is not magic. More often than not, IVF using frozen eggs does not work: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/expensive-lottery...
> The data that does exist is not overwhelmingly positive. According to the latest statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, only 21 percent of cycles among patients using their own frozen eggs ultimately ended in live births. The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, which uses a slightly different metric than the CDC, showed odds that top out around 11 percent, depending on age.
Yes! I wish we could talk about this more openly and honestly. As you note, we still structure workplaces around the needs of married men with stay-at-home spouses, and insofar as women can succeed within that framework, it comes at a real cost to their families. There is a huge gap between how many children women want, and how many they are having: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/upshot/american-fertility...
> As a result, the gap between the number of children that women say they want to have (2.7) and the number of children they will probably actually have (1.8) has risen to the highest level in 40 years. (From 1972 to 2016, men have expressed almost exactly the same ideal fertility rates as women: In a given year, they average just 0.04 children below what women say is ideal.)
It does't make any sense to me to structure career paths to necessarily put the major pressure points during the same time period when biology dictates people will be having kids. Kids really don't require intensive parenting for all that long. Our oldest is already very manageable at 8. I'll only be 45 when our youngest hits that age. At that point, I'll have at least another two decades before retirement, but parenting obligations will go down a lot. I'll be twiddling my thumbs waiting for grandkids, I guess. But I would have preferred to back load the career stuff a bit so the major milestones weren't happening while I was trying to parent toddlers.
Corporate policies such as paying for egg freezing are a really unfortunate example of the male-centric nature of workplaces. I'm sure it's well-intentioned, but in effect the message is that women must shift their biological timeline to accommodate the workplace.
Not only that, but egg freezing is not magic. More often than not, IVF using frozen eggs does not work: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/expensive-lottery...
> The data that does exist is not overwhelmingly positive. According to the latest statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, only 21 percent of cycles among patients using their own frozen eggs ultimately ended in live births. The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, which uses a slightly different metric than the CDC, showed odds that top out around 11 percent, depending on age.
> When I mention it to someone that I want to take time off for a couple years
> actual equality where we acknowledge that women have different needs and desires
I find your view sexist and disturbing. 99% men would love to take couple of years off with kids as well. But face even more obstacles!
> actual equality where we acknowledge that women have different needs and desires
I find your view sexist and disturbing. 99% men would love to take couple of years off with kids as well. But face even more obstacles!
Try this: s/women/people/g
If taking a break to focus on parenting was more acceptable, anyone (man/woman/nonbinary) who wanted to do this would benefit.
Many careers are built around this idea that you spend 5-10 years, with no breaks, in your late 20s and 30s working on something. What if taking a substantial chunk of time off was more common (for anyone)?
If taking a break to focus on parenting was more acceptable, anyone (man/woman/nonbinary) who wanted to do this would benefit.
Many careers are built around this idea that you spend 5-10 years, with no breaks, in your late 20s and 30s working on something. What if taking a substantial chunk of time off was more common (for anyone)?
> Try this: s/women/people/g
Wow I don't even know what to say haha.
Wow I don't even know what to say haha.
That would be awesome.
Unfortunately, young people also don't have money. That's the time period when many people feel a lot of pressure to accumulate savings -- often, that might specifically be so that they can afford to raise a child in the future.
Acceptance of multigenerational households, living with grandparents, and raising kids there, would be an option and allow people in their 20s to become parents before their careers have taken off. But even for those who have loving and supportive grandparents, that also can be a major strain on a relationship.
Unfortunately, young people also don't have money. That's the time period when many people feel a lot of pressure to accumulate savings -- often, that might specifically be so that they can afford to raise a child in the future.
Acceptance of multigenerational households, living with grandparents, and raising kids there, would be an option and allow people in their 20s to become parents before their careers have taken off. But even for those who have loving and supportive grandparents, that also can be a major strain on a relationship.
Please don't take this thread into gender flamewar. It's obviously already prone to it—that's no reason to push it into the volcano. Actually it's a reason to consciously post otherwise, as the guidelines say:
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> All this corporate grifting and women's empowerment months will do jack shit until we figure out how to make workplaces and lives more equitable for mothers and allowing for gaps, breaks and destigmatizing time off for parents of both genders.
Exactly this. Generous maternity leave and at least 0.25x paternity leave. I am not a woman, so I can't possibly begin to imagine how tough pregnancy is on a body. I also really doubt that anyone is really focused on work in the months immediately following birth.
You can't buy baby food and bond with it with a pink ribbon or with the fact that your company's board of directors is 50% female.
Lack of parental leaves is just young parents subsidizing unsavory capitalistic practices and outright greed.
Exactly this. Generous maternity leave and at least 0.25x paternity leave. I am not a woman, so I can't possibly begin to imagine how tough pregnancy is on a body. I also really doubt that anyone is really focused on work in the months immediately following birth.
You can't buy baby food and bond with it with a pink ribbon or with the fact that your company's board of directors is 50% female.
Lack of parental leaves is just young parents subsidizing unsavory capitalistic practices and outright greed.
There's zero legitimate reason to gender parental leave either way. Not because "muh equality" or sexism or anything like that, but it should be "new kid == n weeks leave," whether you're the biological mother, father, adoptive parent, had a biological child via surrogate, whatever.
Gotta disagree. Bleeding, bleeding, bleeding, tears, pelvic instability, trouble pooping, breast milk coming in, mastitis, difficulty walking for several weeks, hormonal changes to sleep ability. People who give birth need time to physically heal. Some have an easy time, others are still shuffling around in mesh underpants with witch hazel and aloe soaked hygiene pads at four weeks post birth. (Search for padsicle to learn about it.)
All the more reason to have equal leave so they can be looked after while recuperating. If you're suggesting giving new fathers less "approved/acceptable" time off, you're telling mother who have these complications that they're going to have to fend for themselves. Imagine telling someone with a 4th degree tear (don't Google this) that they have to deal with everything around that, as well as a newborn, alone for 8-10 hours a day.
Best of luck calming the baby down without the mother.
Why?
There are times when a baby just wants mom and nobody else will do. But there also also times when a baby just wants dad (or grandma/grandpa/nanny/other caregiver) and nobody else will do. Babies are just weird sometimes.
Other than those specific cases, calming a baby is mostly a matter of your skill and being lucky with your baby's temperament.
There are times when a baby just wants mom and nobody else will do. But there also also times when a baby just wants dad (or grandma/grandpa/nanny/other caregiver) and nobody else will do. Babies are just weird sometimes.
Other than those specific cases, calming a baby is mostly a matter of your skill and being lucky with your baby's temperament.
I won't assume you don't have kids, but what you said does not align with my experience at all.
I have two kids from different relationships, and as dad, in both cases, I calmed down my kids better than the mothers did. They both relied on me specially in the worst baby crying situations.
I don't think I am an exception in ability or anything, I just cared to go learn a bit about babies, that's all. Thought a couple of friends how to do it, they also became very good at it.
I have two kids from different relationships, and as dad, in both cases, I calmed down my kids better than the mothers did. They both relied on me specially in the worst baby crying situations.
I don't think I am an exception in ability or anything, I just cared to go learn a bit about babies, that's all. Thought a couple of friends how to do it, they also became very good at it.
So how do you do it? I want to be good at calming babies too!
Dad here as well and while there are a few actual tricks (which you can google and add to your arsenal), what I found was to approach it as a puzzle and try some logical things first (wet/soiled?, hungry?, needs burped?, over-tired?, too hot? [rare], too cold? [less rare]) and if it wasn't one of those, well then here we go: just keep trying things somewhat randomly, taking notes later as to what worked and what didn't. Some kids like to be squeezed, others talked to, others picked up, others tickled, others rocked, and it changes 15-minute to 15-minute period.
My wife was better at some aspects or episodes than I was (especially if it was feeding as I could feed from a bottle eventually once I thawed and warmed and bottled the milk, but that took an eternity in crying infant terms), but I was better at staying calm and intrigued by how to solve the puzzle this time. If she got upset/frustrated because our infant was upset, nothing good came of it, and I am personality-wise better suited to plowing through that situation without [much visible] frustration.
Assuming it's not a fatal problem, eventually something will work; in the history of the world, that's never failed to be true.
My wife was better at some aspects or episodes than I was (especially if it was feeding as I could feed from a bottle eventually once I thawed and warmed and bottled the milk, but that took an eternity in crying infant terms), but I was better at staying calm and intrigued by how to solve the puzzle this time. If she got upset/frustrated because our infant was upset, nothing good came of it, and I am personality-wise better suited to plowing through that situation without [much visible] frustration.
Assuming it's not a fatal problem, eventually something will work; in the history of the world, that's never failed to be true.
The only solutions to all this I can think of are considered hopelessly "radical" and "socialist".
One thing that would help is having a Universal Basic Income, with Universal Healthcare. This would allow people to work on startups at their own pace, instead of desperately needing to become successful in a relatively short time-frame in order to create some stability.
One thing that would help is having a Universal Basic Income, with Universal Healthcare. This would allow people to work on startups at their own pace, instead of desperately needing to become successful in a relatively short time-frame in order to create some stability.
It's not clear what you're asking for exactly, but the solution is obvious: give whatever it is that you want to provide to EVERYONE, regardless of their gender, and whether or not they actually have children. Special treatment for everyone.
This is a nice sentiment, but doing so would have unintended consequences.
For example, in most top universities, they give roughly the same leave to new fathers as new mothers. New mothers use this time to care for their baby, but many new fathers use this time as an extended sabbatical/research leave. Their wives take care of the baby for the most part, and they work on their next book.
Then when it comes time for tenure review, the men who did this have accomplished more than they would have if they hadn't had kids (and more than some faculty who are mothers, who spent their leave with their baby).
So when everyone gets the same treatment, that doesn't necessarily reduce or eliminate disparities — and in some cases it can exacerbate them.
For example, in most top universities, they give roughly the same leave to new fathers as new mothers. New mothers use this time to care for their baby, but many new fathers use this time as an extended sabbatical/research leave. Their wives take care of the baby for the most part, and they work on their next book.
Then when it comes time for tenure review, the men who did this have accomplished more than they would have if they hadn't had kids (and more than some faculty who are mothers, who spent their leave with their baby).
So when everyone gets the same treatment, that doesn't necessarily reduce or eliminate disparities — and in some cases it can exacerbate them.
2nd step would be a cultural change that would make it OK for men to do childrearing.
Let young boys play with dolls. Celebrate fathers who parent young kids in movies and TV shows.
Let young boys play with dolls. Celebrate fathers who parent young kids in movies and TV shows.
I don't think the goal should be to eliminate disparities. I think it should be eliminate obstacles.
If the husband and wife agree that they want to use their combined paternity/maternity in a given way, who are you or I to tell them that they can't? The wife could just as well force the husband to take care of the child and work on her own next book. Or the pair could stagger their leaves so that they spend equal time taking care of the baby.
If the husband and wife agree that they want to use their combined paternity/maternity in a given way, who are you or I to tell them that they can't? The wife could just as well force the husband to take care of the child and work on her own next book. Or the pair could stagger their leaves so that they spend equal time taking care of the baby.
> Their wives take care of the baby for the most part, and they work on their next book.
I was under the impression people had kids to build a family together, not to compete with their partners for achievements. I don't think at all the situation you described is bad in any way. In fact, it would be a huge step forward.
You know what is better then a new father stressed at work, absent from home, worried his career is not growing fast enough? A new father excited about the future, doing something that is quite easily interrupted to help with the newborn and building a future for the family.
I do agree giving everyone the same things would be the best, but it is easier said than done. Easier for large corporations to support larger universal parental leaven than to for startups to do the same.
I was under the impression people had kids to build a family together, not to compete with their partners for achievements. I don't think at all the situation you described is bad in any way. In fact, it would be a huge step forward.
You know what is better then a new father stressed at work, absent from home, worried his career is not growing fast enough? A new father excited about the future, doing something that is quite easily interrupted to help with the newborn and building a future for the family.
I do agree giving everyone the same things would be the best, but it is easier said than done. Easier for large corporations to support larger universal parental leaven than to for startups to do the same.
> I was under the impression people had kids to build a family together, not to compete with their partners for achievements. I don't think at all the situation you described is bad in any way. In fact, it would be a huge step forward.
I wasn't indicating that the spouses were in any way competing with each other. I was pointing out the inequity that results among professors who are fathers and their colleagues who are mothers. The seemingly generous and 'equal' policy of giving the same leave to mothers and fathers has the result of disadvantaging professors who are mothers, on balance.
(I should note that not all male professors spend their leave in this way, but enough of them do it is a problem.)
I wasn't indicating that the spouses were in any way competing with each other. I was pointing out the inequity that results among professors who are fathers and their colleagues who are mothers. The seemingly generous and 'equal' policy of giving the same leave to mothers and fathers has the result of disadvantaging professors who are mothers, on balance.
(I should note that not all male professors spend their leave in this way, but enough of them do it is a problem.)
So your solution to these iniquities is to punish potential success by sex through the denial of equal treatment in child-related leave? Leave alone the fact that this would be illegal discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, how would this work for non-heterosexual relationships? Wouldn't non-childbearing lesbian professors also have this advantage while their SO is nursing their newborn? Ultimately, your solution seems more pro-natalist to a fault rather than "pro-equity".
You seem to have read a lot into my comment that wasn't there. I wasn't advocating for a specific policy, only pointing out that giving the same thing to everyone doesn't always result in outcomes that are equal.
Also, I never suggested anything that would violate Title VII. At most law firms (including the one I worked at for many years), a parent who birthed a child received much more leave than the other parent.
Also, I never suggested anything that would violate Title VII. At most law firms (including the one I worked at for many years), a parent who birthed a child received much more leave than the other parent.
> many new fathers use this time as an extended sabbatical/research leave.
How do they even focus with a crying baby in the next room? And how do their marriages survive such an abdication of responsiblity?
How do they even focus with a crying baby in the next room? And how do their marriages survive such an abdication of responsiblity?
They go into their office at the university, so noise is no problem.
As for their marriages, it's not necessarily an inappropriate division of labor; one partners is earning money and the other is caring for a child. The potential unfairness is that it tends to result in men getting more work done, and appearing to be either more productive or more intelligent than women whom they work with.
As for their marriages, it's not necessarily an inappropriate division of labor; one partners is earning money and the other is caring for a child. The potential unfairness is that it tends to result in men getting more work done, and appearing to be either more productive or more intelligent than women whom they work with.
Similar where I work. A male colleague has taken a couple paternity leaves in the last few years and he said he just spent the time working on side projects and watching TV.
He did spend some time caring for his new children but if his case is representative then, for a male, having a child is like getting extra paid time off which is not fair to people who may not use paternity leave.
He did spend some time caring for his new children but if his case is representative then, for a male, having a child is like getting extra paid time off which is not fair to people who may not use paternity leave.
My adviser used his paternity leave to interview at other jobs and then leave half his grad students behind because his wife thought New Orleans was a third world country. Still rankles me.
I'm not proud to share this anecdote, but I pitched a VC firm wearing a long-sleeve shirt to cover up the bracelet that let me back into the maternity wards for the first 48 hours of my kid's life.
To the VC partner's credit, he stopped the meeting when he saw the bracelet and I explained what it was (and re-scheduled the meeting for a couple weeks later, so it wasn't a blow-off; I still didn't get funded, but it left a positive impression).
To the VC partner's credit, he stopped the meeting when he saw the bracelet and I explained what it was (and re-scheduled the meeting for a couple weeks later, so it wasn't a blow-off; I still didn't get funded, but it left a positive impression).
Most major decisions have unintended consequences. I don't see that as a legitimate opposing point, especially without alternatives. Please keep in mind that this isn't just about men vs. women. There are plenty of women who don't want to have children, and who aren't pressured into that decision by the need to focus on a career. They deserve the same treatment that women who choose to have children receive too.
I agree completely with the premise that most people don't appreciate just how fleeting fertility can be, but I think rather than freezing eggs, the solution is for people to normalize having children at a younger age and designing work and home life around children existing and even being present in certain work contexts.
Obviously freezing your eggs is something that you can do as individual without society's input, and my preferred solution is a cultural overhaul...
But economic productivity is only useful insofar as it leads to better lives for people, economic activity that increases well-being by one unit is pointless if it requires us to spend more than one unit of well-being (by say, freezing our eggs and not becoming grandparents until we're 80) to achieve it.
Obviously freezing your eggs is something that you can do as individual without society's input, and my preferred solution is a cultural overhaul...
But economic productivity is only useful insofar as it leads to better lives for people, economic activity that increases well-being by one unit is pointless if it requires us to spend more than one unit of well-being (by say, freezing our eggs and not becoming grandparents until we're 80) to achieve it.
My MIL used to say, "there's a reason that they make mothers young," and it's because kids are exhausting. As a mid-40s male, I can't imagine bringing a child into my life again right now. I would die before 50 from sleep deprivation.
I just had my first at 45, and it is worth it, but I do now appreciate the wisdom of my friends who did this in their twenties.
Amen. I really don’t understand the stigma around having children when you’re young. It should be the norm.
Had my one and only child at 21 (wife is 10 years older than I am, mind), never once regretted it and my career never suffered (went from a $12/hr tech support job to being a decently paid DevOps engineer over a 4-year time span following our daughters birth).
Am I on a more extreme end of the spectrum? Absolutely, and I wouldn’t recommend it to everyone; but I’m happy with the choice I made.
Am I on a more extreme end of the spectrum? Absolutely, and I wouldn’t recommend it to everyone; but I’m happy with the choice I made.
It's clear that, on so many levels, the gradual deferral of child-bearing to the 30s (even 40s!) has been incredibly costly and destructive to society.
We need to figure out a way to reconcile having children starting in the late teens and ending in the mid-20s (which is by far the safest, cheapest, and easiest time to do it) with the modern economy (which prioritizes slavishly focusing on school/work until your fertility has mostly dried up and you're at massively increased risk of passing on genetic abnormalities).
One strategy could be to have child-rearing skip a generation, with grandparents (in their 30s/40s) doing most of the work while the parents (in their teens/20s) go to school and start their career.
We need to figure out a way to reconcile having children starting in the late teens and ending in the mid-20s (which is by far the safest, cheapest, and easiest time to do it) with the modern economy (which prioritizes slavishly focusing on school/work until your fertility has mostly dried up and you're at massively increased risk of passing on genetic abnormalities).
One strategy could be to have child-rearing skip a generation, with grandparents (in their 30s/40s) doing most of the work while the parents (in their teens/20s) go to school and start their career.
For a while I've been thinking about moving back in/near my parents so that if/when I decide to start a family, they can be around to help out so as dampen the career stunting effects of having children. I think this would especially be useful to my then wife, but of course such things sound great on paper but are much more difficult to execute in reality.
How do you think it's been incredibly costly and destructive to society?
Medical outcomes rapidly become much worse and more expensive for both mother and child as mothers age, as well as precipitously falling birth rates partially attributable to the increased difficulty of having marginal children as one gets older.
I made a comment elsewhere in the thread trying to quantify the way outcomes change with the mother's age [1]. Using the data referenced in that comment, it looks like outcomes are quite stable for the entirety of a woman's 20s and still decent into her early 30s. The real change seems to occur in the early-mid 30s.
In contrast, your parent comment prioritizes women having children at age 20-25. Looking at the data I just referenced, this seems unnecessarily aggressive from a medical standpoint -- do you have a different measure of maternal outcomes in mind? (And from a non-medical standpoint, I'm skeptical that late teens/early 20s are the best time for modern humans to choose the parent of their child.)
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26349221
In contrast, your parent comment prioritizes women having children at age 20-25. Looking at the data I just referenced, this seems unnecessarily aggressive from a medical standpoint -- do you have a different measure of maternal outcomes in mind? (And from a non-medical standpoint, I'm skeptical that late teens/early 20s are the best time for modern humans to choose the parent of their child.)
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26349221
I think there is also an increasing sense that young people should enjoy life and freedom. Travel, go on adventures etc. I certainly had that attitude in my 20s, and didn't want to be tied down. Seems like it's a relatively recent thing. Older generations had a pretty straight path from school to work to family + kids.
> the solution is for people to normalize having children at a younger age and designing work and home life around children
100%
In ancient times mothers always worked with babys strapped to their stomachs. A baby needs a mother and it needs to be fed with nice milk constantly. I was really happy seeing a lady breastfeeding her child in the Australian parliament. An safe and sane environment where this is normality needs to be the goal.
But it's not just about work/home balance. It's also about being in a financially sound position, in a strong enough relationship with the "right" person, to be able to have a child. And that's increasingly hard for young people today, with the cost of living being higher than ever, wage growth hitting a wall, and attitudes towards relationships changing.
Having a baby isn't as simple as deciding to do it.
The problem is that society has been moving in basically the exact opposite direction for quite a while now. Anyone married under 25 is seen as weird and rushing into something, and anyone with a child at that age is assumed to have gotten themselves there by accident.
The problem is that society has been moving in basically the exact opposite direction for quite a while now. Anyone married under 25 is seen as weird and rushing into something, and anyone with a child at that age is assumed to have gotten themselves there by accident.
> being in a financially sound position
As a newish parent (nearly two years), the only real costs I see are for childcare. Yes clothing and food costs something, but it's not that much (and plenty of people will give you old clothes if you ask). We share a bedroom, and it's not a problem. This can be solved by having the right support structures in place by the state. I live in an EU country, but my country doesn't do very well with this.
Although my SO does not work (they were studying before our child was born), we do not have family living nearby that can help with childcare, which seems to be how most people cope here. Ideally the state would provide free childcare to all families, regardless of whether parents are working or not. It should be at a high enough standard, that state childcare is the norm (like schools), not the exception.
As a newish parent (nearly two years), the only real costs I see are for childcare. Yes clothing and food costs something, but it's not that much (and plenty of people will give you old clothes if you ask). We share a bedroom, and it's not a problem. This can be solved by having the right support structures in place by the state. I live in an EU country, but my country doesn't do very well with this.
Although my SO does not work (they were studying before our child was born), we do not have family living nearby that can help with childcare, which seems to be how most people cope here. Ideally the state would provide free childcare to all families, regardless of whether parents are working or not. It should be at a high enough standard, that state childcare is the norm (like schools), not the exception.
> It's also about being in a financially sound position,
I'll completely agree with your point about finding the right person, which is absolutely true.
But honestly a lot of stable couples are less precarious than they think. Especially people in the tech industry. You're making more than 100k/year on your own, you're set. But from a bunch of conversations, they imagine sending their kids to a $200k/year college or read the worst possible stats about how much raising a kid costs, without understanding people make parenting work with so much less to no detriment of their kids. If anything, I'd argue being rich makes you more likely to mess up your kids but I should move on.
Instead, I think people should consider whether they want to raise a baby when they have a fraction of the energy they had when they were in their 20s. They should consider whether they want to raise a toddler when just stepping out of their car weird tweaks their ankle, making it hard to walk for a couple days. Or whether they want to stress about their kids while they have to start taking blood pressure meds for the simple reason of "it's genetics and you're 50, this is just how your body works now."
Obviously, if you can't pay your water bill, maybe don't have kids. But even then, if you're smart and kind, you could probably pull it off and the world would be better for it.
I'll completely agree with your point about finding the right person, which is absolutely true.
But honestly a lot of stable couples are less precarious than they think. Especially people in the tech industry. You're making more than 100k/year on your own, you're set. But from a bunch of conversations, they imagine sending their kids to a $200k/year college or read the worst possible stats about how much raising a kid costs, without understanding people make parenting work with so much less to no detriment of their kids. If anything, I'd argue being rich makes you more likely to mess up your kids but I should move on.
Instead, I think people should consider whether they want to raise a baby when they have a fraction of the energy they had when they were in their 20s. They should consider whether they want to raise a toddler when just stepping out of their car weird tweaks their ankle, making it hard to walk for a couple days. Or whether they want to stress about their kids while they have to start taking blood pressure meds for the simple reason of "it's genetics and you're 50, this is just how your body works now."
Obviously, if you can't pay your water bill, maybe don't have kids. But even then, if you're smart and kind, you could probably pull it off and the world would be better for it.
It varies on your standard of living and region. If both partners are in tech or equivalent then there usually isn’t a struggle but as soon as one isn’t, it can be tough in some regions to find sustainable living for the traditional American dream. Where I live (SV - peninsula) and for my age (30), I have no hopes of having children anytime soon in my current circumstance unless FAANG finally takes me in or I can get another startup to IPO. (As it seems wasting years of your life for one startup IPO wasn’t sufficient enough, sadly)
I couldn’t possibly imagine having kids earlier. Even now, it still seems like a pipe dream. And I have no interest in Ivy League schools or private elementary, etc.
I couldn’t possibly imagine having kids earlier. Even now, it still seems like a pipe dream. And I have no interest in Ivy League schools or private elementary, etc.
[deleted]
I'm not so sure freezing eggs is sound advice.
Lord Winston, who is professor of fertility studies at Imperial College London, warned that it was "a very unsuccessful technology" and said: "The number of eggs that actually result in a pregnancy after freezing is about 1%." He later clarified he was referring to live births.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51463488#:~:text=Lord%20Wins....
“It’s not like I would discourage egg freezing. Women should be doing it because it’s the best option they have, but it is not an insurance policy,” says Christos Coutifaris, past president of the ASRM and a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania. “Insurance policies usually guarantee a payoff. In this case, there is no guarantee.” https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/08/14/133377/mothers-j...
Lord Winston, who is professor of fertility studies at Imperial College London, warned that it was "a very unsuccessful technology" and said: "The number of eggs that actually result in a pregnancy after freezing is about 1%." He later clarified he was referring to live births.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51463488#:~:text=Lord%20Wins....
“It’s not like I would discourage egg freezing. Women should be doing it because it’s the best option they have, but it is not an insurance policy,” says Christos Coutifaris, past president of the ASRM and a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Pennsylvania. “Insurance policies usually guarantee a payoff. In this case, there is no guarantee.” https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/08/14/133377/mothers-j...
Just for context, numbers I have been told from multiple fertility doctors are:
20-30% of eggs extracted will fertilize and grow to day 5 blastocysts (aka embryos). The rest will die before reaching day 5.
If the eggs were preserved before the women turned 35, each blastocyst has a roughly 70% chance of being chromosomally normal (which means it is a "good, viable embryo"). For women above 35 years old, the percentage of viable blastocysts goes down (e.g. for a 40 year old, ~40% of blastocysts are viable). This is why is it is important to preserve eggs early.
Each chromosomally normal day 5 blastocyst has about a 50% chance to result in a live birth after it is transferred.
So... if you are 35 years old and start with say 12 frozen eggs, you are maybe going to end up with 2-3 viable day 5 embryos, which are likely to turn into 1.5 children.
Note that this presumes everything is in working order with the woman's reproductive system. Egg quality issues or other issues can make the probabilities for each step decrease.
20-30% of eggs extracted will fertilize and grow to day 5 blastocysts (aka embryos). The rest will die before reaching day 5.
If the eggs were preserved before the women turned 35, each blastocyst has a roughly 70% chance of being chromosomally normal (which means it is a "good, viable embryo"). For women above 35 years old, the percentage of viable blastocysts goes down (e.g. for a 40 year old, ~40% of blastocysts are viable). This is why is it is important to preserve eggs early.
Each chromosomally normal day 5 blastocyst has about a 50% chance to result in a live birth after it is transferred.
So... if you are 35 years old and start with say 12 frozen eggs, you are maybe going to end up with 2-3 viable day 5 embryos, which are likely to turn into 1.5 children.
Note that this presumes everything is in working order with the woman's reproductive system. Egg quality issues or other issues can make the probabilities for each step decrease.
I don't agree with this take. IVF live birth rates are something like 30% of implantations. e.g. see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7139227/.
The article you're linking even says that Winston is using the wrong number, and spends most of its time explaining why he's wrong;
> Lord Winston's 1% figure was referring to the proportion of all frozen eggs thawed for use in fertility treatment which result in a pregnancy and subsequent live birth.
You have plenty of eggs; it's not particularly relevant if a single egg has a 1% chance of resulting in a live birth. The extraction process will gather something like 10 eggs (plus or minus a lot) and then later you fertilize lots of those eggs and select the best candidates for implantation. Selectively quoting the single-egg success rate provides an inaccurate picture of the actual success rates of the overall process (one that's quite obscure and therefore susceptible to people misunderstanding when articles publish misleading advice like this).
Furthermore, research shows that the primary factor determining live birth rate is the age of the eggs. As you get above 37/38 the live-birth rate starts to decrease dramatically. If you freeze your eggs at 35 then implant at age 40 then you don't see the same increase in failure rate as if you just did IVF at age 40.
IF you want to postpone having kids until your 40s, but you know you really want to have kids at that age, then freezing your eggs is a good strategy for those that can afford it.
I'm all for giving women more choices/options around child-bearing; it's already difficult enough for women to balance career and children in modern society.
> Insurance policies usually guarantee a payoff. In this case, there is no guarantee.
If you're looking to buy an insurance policy that guarantees you will get pregnant, I'm sorry to say no such thing exists. All you can do is improve your probabilities. Freezing your eggs does this.
> Women should be doing it because it’s the best option they have
Again your quote is actually arguing for freezing eggs being a good option. What would you say "sound advice" is for women that want to defer having children until their 40s, if it's not freezing their eggs?
The article you're linking even says that Winston is using the wrong number, and spends most of its time explaining why he's wrong;
> Lord Winston's 1% figure was referring to the proportion of all frozen eggs thawed for use in fertility treatment which result in a pregnancy and subsequent live birth.
You have plenty of eggs; it's not particularly relevant if a single egg has a 1% chance of resulting in a live birth. The extraction process will gather something like 10 eggs (plus or minus a lot) and then later you fertilize lots of those eggs and select the best candidates for implantation. Selectively quoting the single-egg success rate provides an inaccurate picture of the actual success rates of the overall process (one that's quite obscure and therefore susceptible to people misunderstanding when articles publish misleading advice like this).
Furthermore, research shows that the primary factor determining live birth rate is the age of the eggs. As you get above 37/38 the live-birth rate starts to decrease dramatically. If you freeze your eggs at 35 then implant at age 40 then you don't see the same increase in failure rate as if you just did IVF at age 40.
IF you want to postpone having kids until your 40s, but you know you really want to have kids at that age, then freezing your eggs is a good strategy for those that can afford it.
I'm all for giving women more choices/options around child-bearing; it's already difficult enough for women to balance career and children in modern society.
> Insurance policies usually guarantee a payoff. In this case, there is no guarantee.
If you're looking to buy an insurance policy that guarantees you will get pregnant, I'm sorry to say no such thing exists. All you can do is improve your probabilities. Freezing your eggs does this.
> Women should be doing it because it’s the best option they have
Again your quote is actually arguing for freezing eggs being a good option. What would you say "sound advice" is for women that want to defer having children until their 40s, if it's not freezing their eggs?
The extraction process will gather something like 10 eggs (plus or minus a lot)...
Isn't 10 minus "a lot", close to or equal to 0? Or is there something I'm missing with this phrasing?
Isn't 10 minus "a lot", close to or equal to 0? Or is there something I'm missing with this phrasing?
Perhaps I was being overly flippant as I don't have the precise distribution. I'm sure it could be zero, I don't know how often that is though. A quick Google gives 10-20 on average:
https://www.arcfertility.com/how-is-ivf-done-step-by-step/#:....
https://www.arcfertility.com/how-is-ivf-done-step-by-step/#:....
Age can affect this. We didn't freeze my wife's until her late 30s; only 4 eggs were created.
I made my statement and posted those quotes because a woman should prioritize children over her career if she desires them. I don't think that there is "sound advice" for women who want to defer having children until they are in their 40s. The odds of a woman having a successful pregnancy are much better if they are under 40. It is easy to see through just the anecdotal reports that many women either thought or were convinced that freezing their eggs succeeds far more often than it actually does in the real world.
A 2018 study [1] showed that kids conceived via IVF had abnormal arterial development. IIRC, teenagers had arteries that were as stiff as an average 40-year-old.
1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6815705/
1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6815705/
Ehhh... the only conclusion I can see there is that more study is warranted. The sample was n=17, normal BMI children currently living in CA with parents who used Stanford for IVF. The control was several years older, and looking at the box plots there's substantial overlap in most measurements.
I mean, sure. We need more research. But shouldn't the null hypothesis be that children born of a novel and extraordinarily unnatural process be less healthy than those born of the usual process?
There's no reason to believe that after all the factors arrayed against IVF children (poor starting egg quality, genetic and cellular damage from ice crystals, mitochondrial damage potential, implantation problems, etc) that the null hypothesis would be "they will be exactly the same".
There's no reason to believe that after all the factors arrayed against IVF children (poor starting egg quality, genetic and cellular damage from ice crystals, mitochondrial damage potential, implantation problems, etc) that the null hypothesis would be "they will be exactly the same".
> (poor starting egg quality, genetic and cellular damage from ice crystals, mitochondrial damage potential, implantation problems, etc)
Well, IVF doesn't necessarily imply any of those things -- in male infertility the eggs may be of high quality, in a fresh cycle the embryos may not be frozen at all, in a healthy mother there may be no implantation issues, etc. There are perhaps hundreds of factors to control for, and the null hypothesis would change depending on the population of IVF children (and their parental history) you're studying.
Well, IVF doesn't necessarily imply any of those things -- in male infertility the eggs may be of high quality, in a fresh cycle the embryos may not be frozen at all, in a healthy mother there may be no implantation issues, etc. There are perhaps hundreds of factors to control for, and the null hypothesis would change depending on the population of IVF children (and their parental history) you're studying.
I just recently had my first at an age closer to 40 than 30. I think freezing your eggs and having kids later is not such a great idea. Sure, you can have the kid well outside your prime or even use a surrogate. But that is just the beginning. Your child is not going to get the experience of being raised by a more youthful and energetic version of yourself . I think there is a lot to be said for that. I wish I had started 5 years sooner.
My Mom was well in her 40's when I was born, my Dad in his early 50's.
I wouldn't trade the childhood I had with them for the world. By the time I came around, they were able to provide a wise, warm, stable and loving home in a way that even the best-intentioned younger folks wouldn't have known how to do. That I played fewer games of toss the ball or the like in exchange doesn't matter a whit. FWIW.
I wouldn't trade the childhood I had with them for the world. By the time I came around, they were able to provide a wise, warm, stable and loving home in a way that even the best-intentioned younger folks wouldn't have known how to do. That I played fewer games of toss the ball or the like in exchange doesn't matter a whit. FWIW.
I really don’t feel the same. As a young adult you get to see your parents get very old very fast, and also when you get internships first job and such your parent has been in retirement for ten years and is clueless about the workforce. Also they’re too old to bother to be grand parents now. Also my old man globally did not give a shit and focus on his own aspirations while he still had free time in good health and financially prepare for his retirement rather than see and help his kid bloom as a young adult. And I can’t really blame him for it.
One thing I noticed as I aged is that my emotional intelligence and resilience increased (as energy decreased) and I'm not sure which is more important for kids; generally what I've read is that so long as kids have food, shelter, some quality time with parents, and healthy interactions with other humans they generally turn out normal. It's fun to be able to do youthful things with kids but the kids can honestly do youthful stuff with anyone and grow from it.
Definitely don't beat yourself up for not being younger; kids will always have more free time and energy than their parents (I had all my kids before 27) and the important thing is to help them find outlets for that energy that they really enjoy.
Definitely don't beat yourself up for not being younger; kids will always have more free time and energy than their parents (I had all my kids before 27) and the important thing is to help them find outlets for that energy that they really enjoy.
Another downside is smaller multi-generational families.
Children birthed to older parents are unlikely to have grandparents.
Children birthed to older parents are unlikely to have grandparents.
In the same boat. Another con of waiting is that many people I wish my children could meet (great grandparents, uncles, friends of family) have died. And of course I and my partner will be dead N years sooner than if I had children at age X - N, which means (at best) less time for grandchildren, or who knows.
I had kids in my mid-late 40s Certainly motivation to be healthy and get energy levels up. For women and the men who have kids with them the chances of twins goes up with age. Or at least that is what my wife found when search for a reason to blame me. :)
I have older parents who had me at 40, and I wouldn't feel guilty over it if I were you. I didn't really realize how much older my parents were than a lot of other people's until I went to college.
Can't speak for the OP, but it's not a "guilt" thing for me. Just trying to understand the pros and cons from a personal and social level.
[deleted]
Its interesting I had a friend who got pregnant at University. I thought it would be ruinous to their career but maybe its a better solution. When she was 40 her child was already an adult and she could fully concentrate on working.
This is an underrated perspective. My wife's mom became a mother at 18, she certainly had a stressful 20's, but by her 30's, she was just a mom working at a bank as a teller, and by her 40's she was a woman in the back office with grown children, and now at 50 she's a VP of something or other with several grandchildren.
Society so heavily stigmatizes teen pregnancy that she still thinks of herself as kind of a screwup, but minus all the self-doubt, it seems like about as well as a life could possibly go.
Society so heavily stigmatizes teen pregnancy that she still thinks of herself as kind of a screwup, but minus all the self-doubt, it seems like about as well as a life could possibly go.
In German there's an old saying "Jung gefreit hat nie gereut", e.g. "married young, no regrets". It always seemed wrong when I was young but my kids are just out of the house now and my bones are already getting creaky. Maybe there's some truth to those old sayings...
Grass is always greener for me but I often think if I could do it over I'd rather have children as early as possible instead of in my late 30s.
I think if I had known how young late 30s and 40s actually is it may have resonated. Like, I still do all of the hobbies and activities I did in my 20s and am arguably in the best shape of my life, pandemic bod not withstanding. I think I truly felt my youth was fleeting and I wanted to be able to "enjoy it".
The reality is I squandered it in some ways and I feel a bit of sadness that my children will have a dad in his 60s by the time they are out of the house. Should have given that youthful energy to them with something to spare as adults. In reality I probably won't have much left when they become adults.
Such is life!
EDIT: Someone down thread makes another point that applied to us. By the time we were "ready", we found we had "unexplained infertility". Science helped us out but it wasn't fun, it was stressful, and pushed our parenthood even later than planned.
I think if I had known how young late 30s and 40s actually is it may have resonated. Like, I still do all of the hobbies and activities I did in my 20s and am arguably in the best shape of my life, pandemic bod not withstanding. I think I truly felt my youth was fleeting and I wanted to be able to "enjoy it".
The reality is I squandered it in some ways and I feel a bit of sadness that my children will have a dad in his 60s by the time they are out of the house. Should have given that youthful energy to them with something to spare as adults. In reality I probably won't have much left when they become adults.
Such is life!
EDIT: Someone down thread makes another point that applied to us. By the time we were "ready", we found we had "unexplained infertility". Science helped us out but it wasn't fun, it was stressful, and pushed our parenthood even later than planned.
RE "unexplained fertility" - exact same thing happened to us.
We waited until we were "ready" (are we ever "ready"? certainly didn't feel like it when the baby arrived!) but it took about 4 years to actually have the baby. Miscarriages, then just nothing apart from endless mechanical & unromantic sex day after day after day for years, with deeply upsetting emotional consequences when nothing happened.
Everything checks out medically and the doctors cheerily just say "keep trying!" but then write "unexplained infertility" on your report as you plod back home for more fruitless intercourse. No one can explain why it is not working as the usual battery of tests they do come back fine ... you begin to envy and resent people you see who are pregnant, you cant look at a cute puppy/kitten because you feel like you'll never have a baby, you simmer with inner rage when someone at work brings in their baby to show around the office, or someone mentions their kids etc ..."HoW cAn thEYy bE sO INSENSITIVE?!?!?!?!" you fume to yourself as you die a little inside. It is quite the existential torture.
To HNers reading this: If this sounds like you, please do yourself a favor and find a clinic that deals with immune-related infertility. During consultations for starting IVF, one clinic casually noted that my wife had "natural killer" CD16+ and CD56+ cells that might be causing the miscarriage and no natural pregnancies. We immediately found a clinic that specialised in treating that condition and 2 months later we had a natural pregnancy that went full term - our baby boy was born 1 year ago and he is thriving. After 4 hard years of sorrow and misery, it just took some basic immune-modulating drugs and we got pregnant naturally after just two months, and a totally textbook baby (straight down the middle on weight & size etc) was born naturally with no complications. It can happen - good luck.
We waited until we were "ready" (are we ever "ready"? certainly didn't feel like it when the baby arrived!) but it took about 4 years to actually have the baby. Miscarriages, then just nothing apart from endless mechanical & unromantic sex day after day after day for years, with deeply upsetting emotional consequences when nothing happened.
Everything checks out medically and the doctors cheerily just say "keep trying!" but then write "unexplained infertility" on your report as you plod back home for more fruitless intercourse. No one can explain why it is not working as the usual battery of tests they do come back fine ... you begin to envy and resent people you see who are pregnant, you cant look at a cute puppy/kitten because you feel like you'll never have a baby, you simmer with inner rage when someone at work brings in their baby to show around the office, or someone mentions their kids etc ..."HoW cAn thEYy bE sO INSENSITIVE?!?!?!?!" you fume to yourself as you die a little inside. It is quite the existential torture.
To HNers reading this: If this sounds like you, please do yourself a favor and find a clinic that deals with immune-related infertility. During consultations for starting IVF, one clinic casually noted that my wife had "natural killer" CD16+ and CD56+ cells that might be causing the miscarriage and no natural pregnancies. We immediately found a clinic that specialised in treating that condition and 2 months later we had a natural pregnancy that went full term - our baby boy was born 1 year ago and he is thriving. After 4 hard years of sorrow and misery, it just took some basic immune-modulating drugs and we got pregnant naturally after just two months, and a totally textbook baby (straight down the middle on weight & size etc) was born naturally with no complications. It can happen - good luck.
It depends what type of business you want to go into. If you're aiming for high finance/law/management/acting, it's improbable to get into without following the normal formula.
I disagree with all of those examples - most managers go into managing late in life. My partner, for example, is current a VP of Operations after diverting twenty years of their life to care for a son with special needs.
A whole lot of actors get into it later in life - but if you're talking about being a hollywood actor than yea - the chances of being a big movie star are vanishingly small no matter what you do.
A lot of really good lawyers go into the field after gaining experience in another specialty and there are some notable lawyers out there that didn't start practicing until well into their forties - it's a very different track than pre-law into a firm but it's quite doable.
On the topic of finance (or "high finance") unless you just generally mean "being rich" then I'd draw your eyes to the fact that the finance industry actually employs a disproportionately large number of women and boosts some of the best work/life balance you can find out there.
The normal formula is normal because it is the easiest to approach, but making shifts to your life later on in age is pretty cheap. You'd be surprised how little it costs you at 30 or 35 to start taking night classes[1] and transition to a new field - it's certainly not as easy as sticking with the same thing but it isn't particularly difficult.
1. If those are even needed, honestly formal education is a bit overvalued and having any formal education is generally transferable to other fields outside of highly specialized scientists - next time you're in the office ask around and see if one of your coworkers has a communications degree - they probably do.
A whole lot of actors get into it later in life - but if you're talking about being a hollywood actor than yea - the chances of being a big movie star are vanishingly small no matter what you do.
A lot of really good lawyers go into the field after gaining experience in another specialty and there are some notable lawyers out there that didn't start practicing until well into their forties - it's a very different track than pre-law into a firm but it's quite doable.
On the topic of finance (or "high finance") unless you just generally mean "being rich" then I'd draw your eyes to the fact that the finance industry actually employs a disproportionately large number of women and boosts some of the best work/life balance you can find out there.
The normal formula is normal because it is the easiest to approach, but making shifts to your life later on in age is pretty cheap. You'd be surprised how little it costs you at 30 or 35 to start taking night classes[1] and transition to a new field - it's certainly not as easy as sticking with the same thing but it isn't particularly difficult.
1. If those are even needed, honestly formal education is a bit overvalued and having any formal education is generally transferable to other fields outside of highly specialized scientists - next time you're in the office ask around and see if one of your coworkers has a communications degree - they probably do.
Agreed, but that is like 0.1% of all people.
I have 3 girls and I am going to encourage them to have their kids when they are young so my wife and I are young enough to help her raise them while they pursues their studies/careers.
Similar situation here, we had our child in our early 20s, mid-university. It was tough for sure, and delayed both our schooling and our careers (mine was impacted more), and finances were tight sometimes, but it increasingly looks like it was monumental luck. We get to focus on careers as our teen naturally wants less to do with us.
Only downside seems to be that I'm a solid 5-7 years older than my equivalently experienced colleagues.
Only downside seems to be that I'm a solid 5-7 years older than my equivalently experienced colleagues.
That was the norm until suddenly people started prioritizing money over procreation. Seems to be cultural and connected to the "abnormal" prosperity of the past and even more abnormal prosperity expectations set by the media.
Well thing is it most often ends up in parents splitting. Although I have such a case in my entourage and it worked but I think being religious helped them quite a bit ! (For the get pregnant by accident and keep it too, now that I think of it.)
My wife went through the hell of a lot of failed rounds of IVF. It's way worse for a woman. It was bad for me in a different way, and not nearly as bad as what my wife had to do.
However this was our choice, I don't demand that the world should change to help. She works a zero contract min wage job. We didn't demand anything of anyone else we had our own goals.
Edit: my heart goes out to anyone suffering through IVF.
Edit 2: we got lucky, she gave birth at 38. Anyone else going through this I'd recommend a book called it starts with the egg.
PS I keep saying "she" because it wouldnt be true to say "we". I didn't suffer my body getting fucked up with hormones.
Edit: my heart goes out to anyone suffering through IVF.
Edit 2: we got lucky, she gave birth at 38. Anyone else going through this I'd recommend a book called it starts with the egg.
PS I keep saying "she" because it wouldnt be true to say "we". I didn't suffer my body getting fucked up with hormones.
Similar experience here. Most people have no idea
The down stream effects of our system could be that the successful, educated, intelligent women and men dont have children, and the more aggressive, more risk taking, less educated among us have many children.
This has the potential to massively harm our society in the long term.
We need to ascribe virtue to having children. We need to ascribe an extremely high amount of virtue to being a good parent.
This has the potential to massively harm our society in the long term.
We need to ascribe virtue to having children. We need to ascribe an extremely high amount of virtue to being a good parent.
That's basically the opening premise of Idiocracy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP2tUW0HDHA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP2tUW0HDHA
I think women have largely been presented a false promise by progressives: value and purpose is derived from work, go do what men do to be their equal. It’s not necessarily anybody’s fault, we live in a society where money is valued. But I wish we could structure society in a way such that the value of raising children, homemaking, is clearly communicated and understood. Being a mother without a snazzy career is frowned upon by plenty of people these days. I don't think that stigma is healthy. Why do women have to emulate men to be valuable?
Couple that with the fact that depression is most prevalent among childless women in their 40s, it’s like we’re fighting nature to create a perfect 3rd wave utopia. Of course women should follow their heart and we should build a society that allows them to do so on equal terms, but we should not discourage homemaking and stigmatize people who want to raise children.
And then there’s the practical side of things for which I’ve not been able to come to a good solution: In order to have a society of power career couples, someone has to raise their kids. As a couple that means you have to find someone who makes at most the same as you make, but probably less, to be your nanny (otherwise it would make more sense financially to just do it yourself). I don't see how that’s a sustainable narrative unless we are holding out for technology to fill that need.
Me? I would be a stay at home dad in a heartbeat. I love cooking and homemaking and being there for children. But practically in my relationship that doesn't make sense so I’m obligated to work my days away in order to provide for my family. I think there’s this idea that all men love career life because it pays the bills. In reality it’s far from a pipe dream existence.
Point is life is about making sacrifices in order to find happiness. If you sacrifice your youth and fertility for a shot at big riches, ultimately thats your choice. I just wish as a society we were more honest about reality and weren’t so dismissive of people who choose to raise children. That is where I see the path start to turn destructive.
Couple that with the fact that depression is most prevalent among childless women in their 40s, it’s like we’re fighting nature to create a perfect 3rd wave utopia. Of course women should follow their heart and we should build a society that allows them to do so on equal terms, but we should not discourage homemaking and stigmatize people who want to raise children.
And then there’s the practical side of things for which I’ve not been able to come to a good solution: In order to have a society of power career couples, someone has to raise their kids. As a couple that means you have to find someone who makes at most the same as you make, but probably less, to be your nanny (otherwise it would make more sense financially to just do it yourself). I don't see how that’s a sustainable narrative unless we are holding out for technology to fill that need.
Me? I would be a stay at home dad in a heartbeat. I love cooking and homemaking and being there for children. But practically in my relationship that doesn't make sense so I’m obligated to work my days away in order to provide for my family. I think there’s this idea that all men love career life because it pays the bills. In reality it’s far from a pipe dream existence.
Point is life is about making sacrifices in order to find happiness. If you sacrifice your youth and fertility for a shot at big riches, ultimately thats your choice. I just wish as a society we were more honest about reality and weren’t so dismissive of people who choose to raise children. That is where I see the path start to turn destructive.
> I think women have largely been presented a false promise by progressives: value and purpose is derived from work, go do what men do to be their equal. It’s not necessarily anybody’s fault, we live in a society where money is valued. But I wish we could structure society in a way such that the value of raising children, homemaking, is clearly communicated and understood. Being a mother without a snazzy career is frowned upon by plenty of people these days. I don't think that stigma is healthy. Why do women have to emulate men to be valuable?
Why ask these questions only as they relate to women and motherhood? Why haven't men being presented a false promise that value and purpose is derived from work? Being a father without a snazzy career is equally (if not more so) frowned upon by plenty of people these days. I don't think that stigma is healthy, either. Why do men have to emulate other men to be "valuable"? Why do men have to avoid emulating women to be "valuable"?
> Couple that with the fact that depression is most prevalent among childless women in their 40s
I don't know your source for this but you should at least consider the possibility that women, particularly women with financial resources (childless women in their 40s, for example), are significantly more likely to seek mental health treatment compared to similarly situated men. Correlation is not causation and more women being treated for depression does not necessarily mean more women are depressed.
Why ask these questions only as they relate to women and motherhood? Why haven't men being presented a false promise that value and purpose is derived from work? Being a father without a snazzy career is equally (if not more so) frowned upon by plenty of people these days. I don't think that stigma is healthy, either. Why do men have to emulate other men to be "valuable"? Why do men have to avoid emulating women to be "valuable"?
> Couple that with the fact that depression is most prevalent among childless women in their 40s
I don't know your source for this but you should at least consider the possibility that women, particularly women with financial resources (childless women in their 40s, for example), are significantly more likely to seek mental health treatment compared to similarly situated men. Correlation is not causation and more women being treated for depression does not necessarily mean more women are depressed.
100% agree that any stigma against being a stay at home dad (viewing the issue from the opposite angle as you ask) is also unhealthy. In my personal journey, at least, I have not encountered men who stigmatize my desire to be a stay at home dad but I have (surprisingly often) encountered women who stigmatize female homemakers (or the concept thereof). I guess it’s only anecdata there, but I don't think I’m wildly off base with my experience.
> ...encountered women who stigmatize female homemakers...
I've read plenty of rants from both genders of stay-at-home dads getting snubbed by stay-at-home moms from their play groups, brunches, and other social activities. I think the stigma against stay-at-home dads hasn't gone away, just shifted to different venues.
I've read plenty of rants from both genders of stay-at-home dads getting snubbed by stay-at-home moms from their play groups, brunches, and other social activities. I think the stigma against stay-at-home dads hasn't gone away, just shifted to different venues.
> Why ask these questions only as they relate to women and motherhood? Why haven't men being presented a false promise that value and purpose is derived from work? Being a father without a snazzy career is equally (if not more so) frowned upon by plenty of people these days. I don't think that stigma is healthy, either. Why do men have to emulate other men to be "valuable"? Why do men have to avoid emulating women to be "valuable"?
+1000 this
Have you noticed that it's leaders focused on their businesses and capitalism that we turn to when we look for definition of value and purpose. Those folks who are looking for our productivity that feeds their wealth.
Maybe we should look for our value and priorities somewhere other than these folks.
+1000 this
Have you noticed that it's leaders focused on their businesses and capitalism that we turn to when we look for definition of value and purpose. Those folks who are looking for our productivity that feeds their wealth.
Maybe we should look for our value and priorities somewhere other than these folks.
> Have you noticed that it's leaders focused on their businesses and capitalism that we turn to when we look for definition of value and purpose. Those folks who are looking for our productivity that feeds their wealth.
> Maybe we should look for our value and priorities somewhere other than these folks.
That may be a strange thing to say at the web forum of a company whose whole purpose is to channel young people towards that mentality and the capitalist perspective of value and purpose.
So please, say it louder.
> Maybe we should look for our value and priorities somewhere other than these folks.
That may be a strange thing to say at the web forum of a company whose whole purpose is to channel young people towards that mentality and the capitalist perspective of value and purpose.
So please, say it louder.
> Me? I would be a stay at home dad in a heartbeat. I love cooking and homemaking and being there for children. But practically in my relationship that doesn't make sense so I’m obligated to work my days away in order to provide for my family. I think there’s this idea that all men love career life because it pays the bills.
> Why ask these questions only as they relate to women and motherhood? Why haven't men being presented a false promise that value and purpose is derived from work?
Men aren't presented with this false promise. Men are influenced to work through negative reinforcement. A man who doesn't have a career is judged harshly, much more so than women, by society and has a difficult time dating and finding a partner.
Men also have a higher economic need to work. Women have much higher social mobility, so women are less economically motivated to work. A low income man will stay poor unless he works himself out of his social class. A low income woman can much more easily marry a man with higher income than her to propel her social class and household income up.
Women are more often presented with the positive reinforcement of value and purpose from work because women deal with less negative reinforcement when not working.
Men aren't presented with this false promise. Men are influenced to work through negative reinforcement. A man who doesn't have a career is judged harshly, much more so than women, by society and has a difficult time dating and finding a partner.
Men also have a higher economic need to work. Women have much higher social mobility, so women are less economically motivated to work. A low income man will stay poor unless he works himself out of his social class. A low income woman can much more easily marry a man with higher income than her to propel her social class and household income up.
Women are more often presented with the positive reinforcement of value and purpose from work because women deal with less negative reinforcement when not working.
> Being a mother without a snazzy career is frowned upon by plenty of people these days. I don't think that stigma is healthy. Why do women have to emulate men to be valuable?
I used to think that, but then I found out that many people aren't trying to emulate men, they are trying to do a more encompassing thing, juggling an unprecedented number of roles and responsibilities surpassing what has been human in nature.
So, basically, even worse than emulating men.
My observation is that a lot of this is based on an assumption that men want to be in corporate careers. As in, pursuing a corporate/intellectual blue collar or white collar career is not an optional checkbox of pride for men that want to exchange time for food and shelter and have a female partner. I think if this was acknowledged for how it is interdependent in the state of the world it would help even out representation and many other strifes, as opposed to gendering the problems and invalidating problems based on priority.
I used to think that, but then I found out that many people aren't trying to emulate men, they are trying to do a more encompassing thing, juggling an unprecedented number of roles and responsibilities surpassing what has been human in nature.
So, basically, even worse than emulating men.
My observation is that a lot of this is based on an assumption that men want to be in corporate careers. As in, pursuing a corporate/intellectual blue collar or white collar career is not an optional checkbox of pride for men that want to exchange time for food and shelter and have a female partner. I think if this was acknowledged for how it is interdependent in the state of the world it would help even out representation and many other strifes, as opposed to gendering the problems and invalidating problems based on priority.
>is not an optional checkbox of pride for men that want to exchange time for food and shelter and have a female partner
This is something that crosses my mind often. Work has some perks, but I would NEVER have taken a career so seriously if I never wanted to get married.
This is something that crosses my mind often. Work has some perks, but I would NEVER have taken a career so seriously if I never wanted to get married.
I would have quit my current job years ago if I didn't have to support my family.
1000% this.
> Why do women have to emulate men to be valuable?
Growing up in a "traditional" family, the first thing that struck me when I went to work at a big investment bank was how the women did everything they could to be like men - all the way down to dress. I remember thinking, this is called equality? That what men traditionally did is clearly so much better, so women now need to become men, and we should celebrate the achievement that they are now free to do so?
I mean, yes, obviously if they want to, the fact that they can is a good thing. But the fact that they almost need to, is not.
> Why do women have to emulate men to be valuable?
Growing up in a "traditional" family, the first thing that struck me when I went to work at a big investment bank was how the women did everything they could to be like men - all the way down to dress. I remember thinking, this is called equality? That what men traditionally did is clearly so much better, so women now need to become men, and we should celebrate the achievement that they are now free to do so?
I mean, yes, obviously if they want to, the fact that they can is a good thing. But the fact that they almost need to, is not.
It might not be emulating men as much as it is simply dressing business casual or business professional because it’s required while in the office.
Did they act and dress like men because of "equality," or because that's the only way they can actually be taken seriously?
I like the film short by pixar called "Purl" for this.
Sounds like we jumped the gun a bit on that? Maybe we should have "changed" people's minds and values regarding gender first before we shoved everyone into a conforming box, and then wondered about the "consequences" and their unwillingness to play along.
[deleted]
Interestingly, single, childless women are also the happiest population demographic.
(https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/may/25/women-h...)
I don't disagree homemaking should be less stigmatized, but the real problem is American startup culture that expects this kind of around-the-clock all-in hustle mentality. The vast majority of businesses are actually just small firms with a few people that make a decent living. That's the lifestyle that should be celebrated and desirable. There's no reason running a business can't be compatible with having a family, we just need to re-define what it looks like to run a company. The focus should be on sustainability and balance, not growth at any cost.
(https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/may/25/women-h...)
I don't disagree homemaking should be less stigmatized, but the real problem is American startup culture that expects this kind of around-the-clock all-in hustle mentality. The vast majority of businesses are actually just small firms with a few people that make a decent living. That's the lifestyle that should be celebrated and desirable. There's no reason running a business can't be compatible with having a family, we just need to re-define what it looks like to run a company. The focus should be on sustainability and balance, not growth at any cost.
I wonder what the data looks like if you regress happiness onto age for single women.
I have no difficulty believing single, childless women are very happy in their 20s and 30s. I wonder though if that rapidly changes past 40.
I would hypothesize the same effect happens for men as well.
I have no difficulty believing single, childless women are very happy in their 20s and 30s. I wonder though if that rapidly changes past 40.
I would hypothesize the same effect happens for men as well.
Yea, dont get me wrong I think that being a childless woman in your 40s is particularly rough but I don't think it is easy for men either. Loneliness really starts to set in by that age.
Childless != lonely, or not having plenty of social contacts. Having kids tend to force one to deal with a certain number of issues which requires socializing of some form, so it may help for those that aren't naturally outgoing and sociable people but beyond that not so much IMO.
Actually, why must the family homemaker necessarily be a woman? If in a male/female relationship the female is the more ambitious one prioritize the male as the primary care giver. Either way raising children still takes time, energy, and focus that could otherwise pile into something else.
While there are differences in general approaches males and females take in raising children I don't think there is any research indicating females are necessarily better than males, or the contrary. The reductio ad absurdum of it is that males tend to be more challenging and females tend to be nurturing, but those distinctions are highly variable.
While there are differences in general approaches males and females take in raising children I don't think there is any research indicating females are necessarily better than males, or the contrary. The reductio ad absurdum of it is that males tend to be more challenging and females tend to be nurturing, but those distinctions are highly variable.
>family homemaker necessarily be a woman
Women, making a broad assumption, seem to have the traits (honed over millemia) of watching over the family.
But in a household, if the husband and wife exhibit the opposite traits, then that must be encouraged too.
I know of a family in which the woman is the bread-winner, the husband takes care of the kids and home, and both are happy.
Women, making a broad assumption, seem to have the traits (honed over millemia) of watching over the family.
But in a household, if the husband and wife exhibit the opposite traits, then that must be encouraged too.
I know of a family in which the woman is the bread-winner, the husband takes care of the kids and home, and both are happy.
1. I didn't say it needs to be a women, I am highlighting that there’s a stigma against women performing that role today.
2. The problem is exactly with the characterization (that you made) of the “more ambitious” route being the career route. Why do we assume having a career requires more ambition than wanting to raise a healthy family?
2. The problem is exactly with the characterization (that you made) of the “more ambitious” route being the career route. Why do we assume having a career requires more ambition than wanting to raise a healthy family?
>1. I didn't say it needs to be a women, I am highlighting that there’s a stigma against women performing that role today.
I'm not aware of any stigma from women being stay at home moms. My impression is that most, if not all, people are aware that money gives you power (or freedom, if you will). And who doesn't like freedom.
There's also less security of income for everyone, so a household relying on one spouse's income is risky. Especially if there's no extended family around that can come to the rescue in the event of loss of income.
>Why do we assume having a career requires more ambition than wanting to raise a healthy family?
Because it's too easy to say "I want to raise a healthy family", therefore it's a poor signal. Proving yourself with work, well remunerated or not, is a better signal. So I would say there are a lot of incentives for women to work, but not because society stigmatizes it, but because it leads to optimal results for women (and men).
I'm not aware of any stigma from women being stay at home moms. My impression is that most, if not all, people are aware that money gives you power (or freedom, if you will). And who doesn't like freedom.
There's also less security of income for everyone, so a household relying on one spouse's income is risky. Especially if there's no extended family around that can come to the rescue in the event of loss of income.
>Why do we assume having a career requires more ambition than wanting to raise a healthy family?
Because it's too easy to say "I want to raise a healthy family", therefore it's a poor signal. Proving yourself with work, well remunerated or not, is a better signal. So I would say there are a lot of incentives for women to work, but not because society stigmatizes it, but because it leads to optimal results for women (and men).
True about income security. I am interested in a solution that looks something like the homemaking person operating as something that resembles a sole proprietorship focused on the care of children. Not a perfect solution but something in that vein.
Re “too easy”: I’m not talking about just wanting to raise a healthy family, the implication is that you actually do it. And that takes a lot of hard work.
The suggestion that two working parents provides optimal results is not true or sustainable in my experience and seems to be the undertone of the discussion: in order to have both parents working, someone probably sacrificed their most fertile years to build a resume. And this isn’t necessarily good for the future of our species.
Is a household with two stable incomes nice? Sure. At the expense of the woman’s fertility.. the sacrifice is questionable. Would also love to see our society support mothers of older children who need less immediate care entering the workforce not just young blood fresh out of high school and college.
Re “too easy”: I’m not talking about just wanting to raise a healthy family, the implication is that you actually do it. And that takes a lot of hard work.
The suggestion that two working parents provides optimal results is not true or sustainable in my experience and seems to be the undertone of the discussion: in order to have both parents working, someone probably sacrificed their most fertile years to build a resume. And this isn’t necessarily good for the future of our species.
Is a household with two stable incomes nice? Sure. At the expense of the woman’s fertility.. the sacrifice is questionable. Would also love to see our society support mothers of older children who need less immediate care entering the workforce not just young blood fresh out of high school and college.
>Re “too easy”: I’m not talking about just wanting to raise a healthy family, the implication is that you actually do it. And that takes a lot of hard work.
And how do you discern if your potential partner is and willing to do the hard work? One way is to use the type of work they do as a proxy. Maybe it's not a good proxy, but I think it is one in use in much of the dating market.
I agree with most of the rest of your comment, but people are just trying to play with the cards they have, even if that results in undesirable long term consequences for society. In the US, I blame all the voters who have somehow not prioritized parental leave and adequate time at home with children. I guess many of us want to be able to shop at grocery stores and eat at restaurants at 9PM at minimum cost.
And how do you discern if your potential partner is and willing to do the hard work? One way is to use the type of work they do as a proxy. Maybe it's not a good proxy, but I think it is one in use in much of the dating market.
I agree with most of the rest of your comment, but people are just trying to play with the cards they have, even if that results in undesirable long term consequences for society. In the US, I blame all the voters who have somehow not prioritized parental leave and adequate time at home with children. I guess many of us want to be able to shop at grocery stores and eat at restaurants at 9PM at minimum cost.
> Because it's too easy to say "I want to raise a healthy family", therefore it's a poor signal. Proving yourself with work, well remunerated or not, is a better signal.
I think that's a fair thing to say but one of many's life unfair situations. I've seen some people put so much effort/work into homemaking that goes beyond of most people I know put into their jobs.
I think that's a fair thing to say but one of many's life unfair situations. I've seen some people put so much effort/work into homemaking that goes beyond of most people I know put into their jobs.
Some people put more effort/work at community college than CalTech too, but when people don’t have all of the information and you’re making guesses based on probability, people use shortcuts like assigning probability of one’s motivations, work ethic, capabilities, etc based on the school they went, the employers they worked for, the jobs they’ve held, the fitness they’re in, etc.
One of those things these days, for better or for worse, happens to be the type of work you get after college.
One of those things these days, for better or for worse, happens to be the type of work you get after college.
> I am highlighting that there’s a stigma against women performing that role today
That is true, but there's an even bigger stigma against men who want to perform that role. Sure, you may find a very career-driven spouse who would be happy with you taking the role of the caregiver, but that is not a common occurrence. The man who does not provide substantial income to the family will find it much harder to find a partner than a woman in the same situation. Talking about heterosexual couples here, of course.
That is true, but there's an even bigger stigma against men who want to perform that role. Sure, you may find a very career-driven spouse who would be happy with you taking the role of the caregiver, but that is not a common occurrence. The man who does not provide substantial income to the family will find it much harder to find a partner than a woman in the same situation. Talking about heterosexual couples here, of course.
I don't think the GP implied that women must be the caregivers given that he himself would be happy as a stay-at-home dad. I think he was just commenting about a common scenario.
> If in a male/female relationship the female is the more ambitious one prioritize the male as the primary care giver
Why equate "ambition" with "desire for a high-paying career"? Somebody who wants to raise a family can also feel ambitious about it.
> If in a male/female relationship the female is the more ambitious one prioritize the male as the primary care giver
Why equate "ambition" with "desire for a high-paying career"? Somebody who wants to raise a family can also feel ambitious about it.
[deleted]
It doesn't. But only 20% of mothers want to work fill time as compared to 70% of fathers. 30% of mothers want to not work at all, and 50% want to work part time.
I don't think the argument here is that women make better parents than men. Rather, we live in a free society where men and women make their own choices. And women and men have substantially different work preferences after becoming a parent.
https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/...
I don't think the argument here is that women make better parents than men. Rather, we live in a free society where men and women make their own choices. And women and men have substantially different work preferences after becoming a parent.
https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/...
[deleted]
I agree with your general point.
But would add that in the very early stages:
1. Women are the ones who get pregnant, which takes a physical toll, and maybe makes working super stressful jobs and long hours ill advised.
2. There is a period of time needed for recovering from the trauma of child birth.
2. Many women prefer breast feeding their children. Yes, they can pump, but may prefer to feed their children er, "naturally", which means getting up at odd hours of the night for a period of time.
3. If the mother is doing most of the feeding because of this, it takes time to fully wean the child. And then the child will likely have a stronger bond with the mother than the father for a little while after that.
4. And maybe the father is now working more hours than the mother due to the added burdens the mother has, which could be another reason the child might be more attached to Mom than Dad at these very young ages.
5. Repeat all of the above for the number of children you plan to have.
All of which is to say, socialization is a huge factor. But there are also differences between being a mother and being a father that are strictly due to biology.
But would add that in the very early stages:
1. Women are the ones who get pregnant, which takes a physical toll, and maybe makes working super stressful jobs and long hours ill advised.
2. There is a period of time needed for recovering from the trauma of child birth.
2. Many women prefer breast feeding their children. Yes, they can pump, but may prefer to feed their children er, "naturally", which means getting up at odd hours of the night for a period of time.
3. If the mother is doing most of the feeding because of this, it takes time to fully wean the child. And then the child will likely have a stronger bond with the mother than the father for a little while after that.
4. And maybe the father is now working more hours than the mother due to the added burdens the mother has, which could be another reason the child might be more attached to Mom than Dad at these very young ages.
5. Repeat all of the above for the number of children you plan to have.
All of which is to say, socialization is a huge factor. But there are also differences between being a mother and being a father that are strictly due to biology.
I think this is due to at least 2 factors:
1) The success of movements for gender equality actually make the excesses of those movements hard to critique.
2) Treating a problem as a choice. The problem is having a home that is relatively clean with 3 healthy and enjoyable meals a day for 2 adults and children. Having one adult focus on income earning while another focuses on household management is a solution many families find works for them. There are others. 2 career focused adults with a nanny is an option if those careers have enough earning power. Some immigrant families here in Canada will have the entire extended family live in a single (large) residence. The grandparents do childcare and household maintenance while all the adults work.
Most media seem to treat family arrangement as people dictating their political philosophy onto those less powerful when in reality the vast majority are managing trade-offs in time, finances, lifestyle, and career.
3) The increasing tendency to optimize society for the upper end of the wealth distribution. When a woman becomes a fortune 500 CEO, supreme court judge, or in any other way reaches the upper echelon of society this is treated as a victory for women as a identity class, even though such victories have no material benefit to the 99% of women who lead normal lives near the median.
Ideally, society optimizes for the median while allowing outliers to path to success. But that requires a level of nuance and flexibility that doesn't seem to have much place in public life.
1) The success of movements for gender equality actually make the excesses of those movements hard to critique.
2) Treating a problem as a choice. The problem is having a home that is relatively clean with 3 healthy and enjoyable meals a day for 2 adults and children. Having one adult focus on income earning while another focuses on household management is a solution many families find works for them. There are others. 2 career focused adults with a nanny is an option if those careers have enough earning power. Some immigrant families here in Canada will have the entire extended family live in a single (large) residence. The grandparents do childcare and household maintenance while all the adults work.
Most media seem to treat family arrangement as people dictating their political philosophy onto those less powerful when in reality the vast majority are managing trade-offs in time, finances, lifestyle, and career.
3) The increasing tendency to optimize society for the upper end of the wealth distribution. When a woman becomes a fortune 500 CEO, supreme court judge, or in any other way reaches the upper echelon of society this is treated as a victory for women as a identity class, even though such victories have no material benefit to the 99% of women who lead normal lives near the median.
Ideally, society optimizes for the median while allowing outliers to path to success. But that requires a level of nuance and flexibility that doesn't seem to have much place in public life.
> Why do women have to emulate men to be valuable?
Why do we assume that those behaviors are inherently a man's?
Women that have a drive to become business leaders do so for personal reasons and not to emulate anyone (except perhaps personal heroes who could happen to be women).
You later speak about a wish to become a stay-at-home father. Is this emulating women or is it a wish based on activities that are not inherently gendered such as cooking and taking care of children?
Why do we assume that those behaviors are inherently a man's?
Women that have a drive to become business leaders do so for personal reasons and not to emulate anyone (except perhaps personal heroes who could happen to be women).
You later speak about a wish to become a stay-at-home father. Is this emulating women or is it a wish based on activities that are not inherently gendered such as cooking and taking care of children?
This! Women who get into business or tech or whatever aren't "emulating men". Many are actually genuinely interested in those pursuits. A lot of women just do not want to be homemakers. Many do, sure, and it should be a viable option without stigma, but for at least half it would be hell and we should allow women to pursue their interests and desires.
My point is not that these behaviors are inherently those of a man. It’s that success should be defined much more broadly than “things men traditionally do”. I think we are in agreement on that I may have not done the best job at capturing the point.
But is being a start-up founder really something that men traditionally do or is it a completely new role that people of all genders can aim for?
This role can be toxic and lead to problematic behaviours that can worsen a person's personal life and mental health, regardless of their gender identity.
This role can be toxic and lead to problematic behaviours that can worsen a person's personal life and mental health, regardless of their gender identity.
it's something that men have traditionally done, yes.
it's like the beard, it's traditionally something that, in general, men have and women don't.
that doesn't mean that things can't change in the future and that the change won't be for the better.
it's like the beard, it's traditionally something that, in general, men have and women don't.
that doesn't mean that things can't change in the future and that the change won't be for the better.
Some of my personal idols from the past are Coco Chanel, Estée Lauder and Katharine Graham.
That would be women born in the 1880's, 1900's and early 1920's.
While few women had the privilege required to focus on their career, it was still present. At what point should we mark something as "tradition"?
Remember that the Equal Credit Opportunity Act was not a thing until 1974. Until then, banks required single, widowed or divorced women to bring a man along to cosign any credit application, regardless of their income.
That would be women born in the 1880's, 1900's and early 1920's.
While few women had the privilege required to focus on their career, it was still present. At what point should we mark something as "tradition"?
Remember that the Equal Credit Opportunity Act was not a thing until 1974. Until then, banks required single, widowed or divorced women to bring a man along to cosign any credit application, regardless of their income.
I'm not American, so I know nothing about the equal credit opportunity, sorry.
I also think that traditions in USA is used to mean inertia ("things have always been done that way" etc.), but US are a very bad country for female workers for reasons that go beyond traditions.
My country has its share of remarkable women, Miuccia Prada is one of them and she's still alive and well, Fabiola Giannotti is Italian and the first female director of CERN, Maria Montessori (1870) the inventor of the Montessori educational method was Italian,Grazia Deledda was the second woman in history to win a Nobel price in 1926 and the first Italian woman and the list could go on, the fact is that until not long ago men and women had different jobs because it was required by the job.
See construction for example, you don't see women in construction.
Traditionally, if we talk about the entire World, means since at least hominids have settled down and started farming.
Luckily things are changing, but there's still the question: do really women want that?
I'm not questioning their abilited here, but the idea that having the choice they would chose to be part of something that men have built in their image at their rules.
For example in Scandinavia where gender equality is higher than everywhere else in the western World, women are less keen to attend STEM faculties because they are too hard for too little reward. They can make more money working as lawyers or for the government, having also more time to do what they like, including spending it raising their kids and with their families. Once they reached equality (same opportunities) they started to chose because they don't have to prove anything to the others.
EDIT: if you think about it we Italians are usually laughed of because we live with our "mamma" and talk a lot about the "famiglia", we are " those lazy Italians" but that's the reason why being a housewife here it's not a stigma. Housewives are not rewarded enough in Italy, but being one it's not the end of your social life. On the contrary in USA (in particular) not working to death is frowned upon, free time is for the lazy people, "work hard and the American dream will come true", these are the kinds of " traditions " that make it impossible to be a woman, a mother and a successful business woman, to the point that paid maternity leave is not even a right!
Here in Italy, which is not the best country in the World about maternity policies, women have 5 mandatory months of paid maternity leave during which they can't be at work, it's mandatory that they abstein from it. The period can be extended if the medical conditions require (or suggest) it.
Paradoxically younger generations that grew up on social media immersed in American culture, see things the same way and have a very hard time accepting that not being highly succesful at work (or in general) is not the end of the World and they also think that being an housewife is a failure.
full disclosure: there haven't been housewives in my family at least in the past three generations, so I am not saying it because I wish for women to stay home and take care of the kids.
I also think that traditions in USA is used to mean inertia ("things have always been done that way" etc.), but US are a very bad country for female workers for reasons that go beyond traditions.
My country has its share of remarkable women, Miuccia Prada is one of them and she's still alive and well, Fabiola Giannotti is Italian and the first female director of CERN, Maria Montessori (1870) the inventor of the Montessori educational method was Italian,Grazia Deledda was the second woman in history to win a Nobel price in 1926 and the first Italian woman and the list could go on, the fact is that until not long ago men and women had different jobs because it was required by the job.
See construction for example, you don't see women in construction.
Traditionally, if we talk about the entire World, means since at least hominids have settled down and started farming.
Luckily things are changing, but there's still the question: do really women want that?
I'm not questioning their abilited here, but the idea that having the choice they would chose to be part of something that men have built in their image at their rules.
For example in Scandinavia where gender equality is higher than everywhere else in the western World, women are less keen to attend STEM faculties because they are too hard for too little reward. They can make more money working as lawyers or for the government, having also more time to do what they like, including spending it raising their kids and with their families. Once they reached equality (same opportunities) they started to chose because they don't have to prove anything to the others.
EDIT: if you think about it we Italians are usually laughed of because we live with our "mamma" and talk a lot about the "famiglia", we are " those lazy Italians" but that's the reason why being a housewife here it's not a stigma. Housewives are not rewarded enough in Italy, but being one it's not the end of your social life. On the contrary in USA (in particular) not working to death is frowned upon, free time is for the lazy people, "work hard and the American dream will come true", these are the kinds of " traditions " that make it impossible to be a woman, a mother and a successful business woman, to the point that paid maternity leave is not even a right!
Here in Italy, which is not the best country in the World about maternity policies, women have 5 mandatory months of paid maternity leave during which they can't be at work, it's mandatory that they abstein from it. The period can be extended if the medical conditions require (or suggest) it.
Paradoxically younger generations that grew up on social media immersed in American culture, see things the same way and have a very hard time accepting that not being highly succesful at work (or in general) is not the end of the World and they also think that being an housewife is a failure.
full disclosure: there haven't been housewives in my family at least in the past three generations, so I am not saying it because I wish for women to stay home and take care of the kids.
> See construction for example, you don't see women in construction.
Three of my close friends are women in the construction industry and my cousin is a car mechanic. My best friend who is male works as a secretary and my uncle is a nurse.
People will works on things that passionate them when they have the freedom to do so. There is no such thing as a gendered job.
I am familiar with the gender equality paradox and personally believe that it's causes are socioeconomic and not about "not having the stress" to "emulate men". Especially since Nordic countries have a higher percentage of women in parliament which I would argue is "traditionally" a man's role.
Three of my close friends are women in the construction industry and my cousin is a car mechanic. My best friend who is male works as a secretary and my uncle is a nurse.
People will works on things that passionate them when they have the freedom to do so. There is no such thing as a gendered job.
I am familiar with the gender equality paradox and personally believe that it's causes are socioeconomic and not about "not having the stress" to "emulate men". Especially since Nordic countries have a higher percentage of women in parliament which I would argue is "traditionally" a man's role.
> Three of my close friends are women in the construction industry
anecdotes aside
Women working in construction numbered 1.5 percent of the entire U.S. workforce
they also earn only 80℅ of the men's pay on average.
> and my uncle is a nurse.
and so was my father, for 42 years. There are cultural differences in the World, as a low payd job there is less incentive for men in USA, only 13% of nurse are men, in Italy about 30% of them is a man.
But in Italy 80% of teachers up to high school are women, for example, still today.
Because traditionally education is a women's role.
We think (or thought) they do it better.
anecdotes aside
Women working in construction numbered 1.5 percent of the entire U.S. workforce
they also earn only 80℅ of the men's pay on average.
> and my uncle is a nurse.
and so was my father, for 42 years. There are cultural differences in the World, as a low payd job there is less incentive for men in USA, only 13% of nurse are men, in Italy about 30% of them is a man.
But in Italy 80% of teachers up to high school are women, for example, still today.
Because traditionally education is a women's role.
We think (or thought) they do it better.
I don't think that the intention was that, but since we are commenting on an article that suggest to women to "freeze their eggs" while pursuing a carreer as a founder, it's probably honest to acknowledge the fact that men don't need to freeze their eggs if they want to have kids later in their lives and can have them while pursuing a career because, in some countries more than others, like in the US for example, women are highly penalized for the fact that they can get pregnant.
So it's less a men's problem than it is a women's problem.
So it's less a men's problem than it is a women's problem.
I don't believe this is sexism at its core. The entire west society is built on the one axiom that work means value. Everything else is extra. That's even worse in the US.
I'm in a similar situation where I'd love to be a parent full-time and be essentially free to live my life. But I could never do that even if my wife wanted to work and let me stay at home. With one person's salary, you can't really sustain a house unless you drastically drop your living standards. It's not really a choice.
We have allowed companies to lower the value of work, drastically forcing every being in a household to work as soon as possible. Society has bought into this making any choice that is not work/career feel like a wrong choice.
Regardless of sex, the problem is the work culture itself.
I'm in a similar situation where I'd love to be a parent full-time and be essentially free to live my life. But I could never do that even if my wife wanted to work and let me stay at home. With one person's salary, you can't really sustain a house unless you drastically drop your living standards. It's not really a choice.
We have allowed companies to lower the value of work, drastically forcing every being in a household to work as soon as possible. Society has bought into this making any choice that is not work/career feel like a wrong choice.
Regardless of sex, the problem is the work culture itself.
If all companies decided to 4x all salaries tomorrow, the cost of all the things we pay for would rise drastically, offsetting whatever extra you're making.
The answer is not as simple as "companies should just pay more."
The answer is not as simple as "companies should just pay more."
It would not "offset whatever you're making". The economy isn't set up so the most cynical option is true. (I can beat you in cynicism anyway - most people don't have salaries so you'd now outbid non-workers such as the elderly by 4x what you did before.)
This is currently coming up as people claiming all stimulus bills will cause inflation, but there's no inflation in the US for the last 30 years, when we did have it the cause was an energy price spike, and so they have no empirical evidence.
This is currently coming up as people claiming all stimulus bills will cause inflation, but there's no inflation in the US for the last 30 years, when we did have it the cause was an energy price spike, and so they have no empirical evidence.
The problem is not inflation. The problem is if you raise everyone's salary, the cost to produce increases. Therefore the cost of products must go up.
That is true (it's called "cost disease") but, like, it's fine. It doesn't go up enough to make it harder to afford. Typically things that actually get much more expensive recently, like housing, have physical supply problems more than anything.
>I think people have largely been presented a false promise: value and purpose is derived from working outside the home.
FTFY.
As you state further in, it's not women's exclusive job to be child-rearing nor is it not 'work' to maintain and run a house.
FTFY.
As you state further in, it's not women's exclusive job to be child-rearing nor is it not 'work' to maintain and run a house.
You'll have to accept that running a house is much less work today than it was 150 years ago when there was no fridge, no hover, no washing mashine, no ready-made food.
Today a single mom with full time job can still run a (not too big) house.
So to be fullfilling there has to be more than just keeping the house clean and people fed, which is probably why so many upper-upper-middle class women have a part-time job running some kind of fashion store.
Today a single mom with full time job can still run a (not too big) house.
So to be fullfilling there has to be more than just keeping the house clean and people fed, which is probably why so many upper-upper-middle class women have a part-time job running some kind of fashion store.
> Today a single mom with full time job can still run a (not too big) house.
Until COVID hits and children have to be taught virtually from home.
There are no easy and cheap answers here, but a series of trade offs. I think the original question is “where is the conversation of the trade off?” I don’t think it’s settled that the ideal social structure involves a dual income family. And I think very few people envy the workload required of single mothers, regardless of technical advances that make cleaning a home easier.
Caregiving goes well beyond making sure the kids have clean underwear.
Until COVID hits and children have to be taught virtually from home.
There are no easy and cheap answers here, but a series of trade offs. I think the original question is “where is the conversation of the trade off?” I don’t think it’s settled that the ideal social structure involves a dual income family. And I think very few people envy the workload required of single mothers, regardless of technical advances that make cleaning a home easier.
Caregiving goes well beyond making sure the kids have clean underwear.
[deleted]
In other nations where the state provides good childcare women have historically entered the workforce just fine.
It's the US (and especially California) that drains everything possible from young families.
It's the US (and especially California) that drains everything possible from young families.
And a good chunk of the women entering the workforce then work for the state providing childcare for other women's children.
You do get a roughly 20:1 economy of scale though, which is tough to sneeze at. And you might be able to scale that up even more with iPads.
Have you seen videos of orphaned animals that bond with stuffed toys or socks or whatever? Cue a DeepDream hallucination triggered by the word "ma-ma": The perfect supernormal stimulus for Baby. Even better than the Peppa Pig nightmare fuel you can already find on Youtube. Little Ash A-10 will be too absorbed to miss you in his cute CarePod.
Have you seen videos of orphaned animals that bond with stuffed toys or socks or whatever? Cue a DeepDream hallucination triggered by the word "ma-ma": The perfect supernormal stimulus for Baby. Even better than the Peppa Pig nightmare fuel you can already find on Youtube. Little Ash A-10 will be too absorbed to miss you in his cute CarePod.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Could you elaborate on why California especially?
Not OP, but in the major Californian metropolises housing has a way of sucking out all available resources. There are lots of people and not enough land, which means that people have a tendency to bid up the price of available housing up to the very maximum that they can afford to pay. As a result, wages are high, but it all goes to landlords or previous homeowners.
Worse, this applies down the income ladder, such that childcare workers, cashiers, waiters, etc. are also living at the edge of subsistence because of housing. As a result, the price of these services gets bid up as well. This affects everybody but tends to affect families more than singles, because they can't bunk with roommates and they require a lot more services that involve paying other people.
This isn't really California-specific: families in Eureka, Merced, and Bakersfield do just fine (except for it being boring and not having many opportunities). But most people associate "California" with either the Bay Area or LA, and both of those metros have lots of money flowing in, lots of people flowing in, and restrictive zoning that keeps housing scarce.
Worse, this applies down the income ladder, such that childcare workers, cashiers, waiters, etc. are also living at the edge of subsistence because of housing. As a result, the price of these services gets bid up as well. This affects everybody but tends to affect families more than singles, because they can't bunk with roommates and they require a lot more services that involve paying other people.
This isn't really California-specific: families in Eureka, Merced, and Bakersfield do just fine (except for it being boring and not having many opportunities). But most people associate "California" with either the Bay Area or LA, and both of those metros have lots of money flowing in, lots of people flowing in, and restrictive zoning that keeps housing scarce.
There's plenty of land in CA for infill development; the problem is it has one-story single family houses on it, and CA has banned development everywhere so nobody can replace them with something more sensible like a fourplex or a multi-story building.
If we could, things would get cheaper, and traffic might even get better (since commutes would improve.)
If we could, things would get cheaper, and traffic might even get better (since commutes would improve.)
No school busses, difficult schedules, insane commutes for parents, expensive aftercare, super expensive daycare, super expensive housing. Hell, they used to make kids pay to play sports until the courts struck that down.
Mostly because California has prop 13 -- the $30B per year transfer of wealth from the young or new into the pockets of Native Sons of the Golden West.
Mostly because California has prop 13 -- the $30B per year transfer of wealth from the young or new into the pockets of Native Sons of the Golden West.
> I think women have largely been presented a false promise by progressives
There's a lot of sneering and judgment by women, toward women who choose to be a stay at home mom and not have a career.
There's a lot of sneering and judgment by women, toward women who choose to be a stay at home mom and not have a career.
The value behind that attitude is that it is a problem to think that women are the ones expected to choose staying-at-home, when culturally this expectation should be distributed equally among genders.
Yes, exactly. I am disappointed (but not sneering nor contemptuous) when I find out that another one of my well-educated and ambitious female peers has decided to become a stay-at-home mom. Not because I don't think it's a valuable or valid role to play, but because I have absolutely zero equivalent male peers who have done the same thing.
Another well-educated women who choose to give up her career and stay at home, without a corresponding man doing the same, is just another data point that makes MY career look invalid, and sees MY career as optional.
Like, more power to her, but it does make me sad at the state of society.
Another well-educated women who choose to give up her career and stay at home, without a corresponding man doing the same, is just another data point that makes MY career look invalid, and sees MY career as optional.
Like, more power to her, but it does make me sad at the state of society.
All of the time when I hear that commentary, it has to do with them finding stay-at-home moms unintelligent, petty, vapid.
You're literally replying to a post not following that pattern. This "all of the time" is uncalled for.
> There's a lot of sneering and judgment by women...
Do you think they would feel differently if the bar to owning a home was lowered to one-income household, 20% DTI, 20-year mortgage, no more than 3% interest, 10% down, no PMI? I suspect a lot of distortions come from a very misaligned house purchase requirements to income availability picture.
Do you think they would feel differently if the bar to owning a home was lowered to one-income household, 20% DTI, 20-year mortgage, no more than 3% interest, 10% down, no PMI? I suspect a lot of distortions come from a very misaligned house purchase requirements to income availability picture.
I think the economics of raising children plays a much greater role than stigma or culture.
I don't think this is some false progressive promise at all. Work is freedom and independence. Through work people express themselves at a cognitive and creative level.
It's not just about 'snazzy careers'. It's about self-realization. When given the choice in countries with tons of generous child welfare policies like in much of Europe, women still defer pregnancy and prefer to get an education or a job, and I don't blame them because honestly most people grow tired of being a stay-at-home parent very quickly. It's just a menial, not really inspiring, and not very social job.
I know a lot of guys who said the same thing you said, that they'd love to stay at home. All who did now work again full-time, some even admitted directly to me how much they hated it after only a few months and how much they missed work.
I think this attempt to romanticize stay-at-home parenting is basically cultural nostalgia. It's also interesting that you frame it as a women's job as others have pointed out, because the only reason women had to do it in the past is because they didn't get much of a say in the matter.
It's not just about 'snazzy careers'. It's about self-realization. When given the choice in countries with tons of generous child welfare policies like in much of Europe, women still defer pregnancy and prefer to get an education or a job, and I don't blame them because honestly most people grow tired of being a stay-at-home parent very quickly. It's just a menial, not really inspiring, and not very social job.
I know a lot of guys who said the same thing you said, that they'd love to stay at home. All who did now work again full-time, some even admitted directly to me how much they hated it after only a few months and how much they missed work.
I think this attempt to romanticize stay-at-home parenting is basically cultural nostalgia. It's also interesting that you frame it as a women's job as others have pointed out, because the only reason women had to do it in the past is because they didn't get much of a say in the matter.
Meanwhile it is impossible for many people to own a house without a double income...
So your idea makes sense, but not in today's economy.
So your idea makes sense, but not in today's economy.
I completely agree with the point here -- people should have the freedom to work a bit less and "live" more (however they define that, be it parenting, pursuing hobbies, or what have you) without fear for their livelihood.
I would offer one amendment: in the US at least, disagreement on this theme is probably one of the major dividing lines between liberals and progressives (and their fellow travelers). Liberals (like Elizabeth Warren, who has labeled herself a progressive but is generally liberal in her policy positions) prioritize free child care and other policies that would make outsourcing childcare less financially onerous, freeing people to work more; progressives and their fellow travelers (like Bernie Sanders and Andrew Yang) prioritize paid family leave, UBI, and other policies that would minimize the need to outsource childcare in the first place by allowing people to work less.
I would offer one amendment: in the US at least, disagreement on this theme is probably one of the major dividing lines between liberals and progressives (and their fellow travelers). Liberals (like Elizabeth Warren, who has labeled herself a progressive but is generally liberal in her policy positions) prioritize free child care and other policies that would make outsourcing childcare less financially onerous, freeing people to work more; progressives and their fellow travelers (like Bernie Sanders and Andrew Yang) prioritize paid family leave, UBI, and other policies that would minimize the need to outsource childcare in the first place by allowing people to work less.
this is also a big reason why several women who have chosen to stay home and look after family and kids feel unfulfilled because many of their peers are seen as more valuable by society.
The reason for this unhappiness is then portrayed as the inability of the women to not have a career. it is often, the other way around.
The reason for this unhappiness is then portrayed as the inability of the women to not have a career. it is often, the other way around.
Joke's on both parties, huh? Can you imagine feeling particular pride because you are important in some random company?
> In order to have a society of power career couples, someone has to raise their kids. [... Y]ou have to find someone [...] to be your nanny [...]. I don't see how that’s a sustainable narrative [...].
Bomb some more countries. Make some more refugees. Problem solved.
In England, when the aspiring middle classes started finding it impossible to afford servants (which was a problem, because that was a key mark of their status), they started taking in kids from workhouses to serve them, and made it out to be some kind of charity. When that ran out they started up guest worker programs. A notable one took poor Jewish women fleeing a certain German government. Win-win, right?
Bomb some more countries. Make some more refugees. Problem solved.
In England, when the aspiring middle classes started finding it impossible to afford servants (which was a problem, because that was a key mark of their status), they started taking in kids from workhouses to serve them, and made it out to be some kind of charity. When that ran out they started up guest worker programs. A notable one took poor Jewish women fleeing a certain German government. Win-win, right?
I believe some economists has this idea for the US a few years back (sponsor an immigrant) and were greeted with peals of laughter.
There is something wrong with the argument that women need to think of raising kids and staying home as ambitious as anything anyone does including those working 16 hours/day jobs and building a career that rewards proportionally, ie. lawyers at top firms, surgeons etc.
Incidentally this is orthogonal to if men raise the kids or women.
You can’t equate the two. The stigma is not entirely irrational. Raising kids is the default thing humans do, graduating at the top of your law school and becoming a partner at Cravath, Swaine & Moore is not.
Incidentally this is orthogonal to if men raise the kids or women.
You can’t equate the two. The stigma is not entirely irrational. Raising kids is the default thing humans do, graduating at the top of your law school and becoming a partner at Cravath, Swaine & Moore is not.
> but we should not discourage homemaking and stigmatize people who want to raise children.
Nor should we stigmatize those that do not have a career and do not have children. Because that's a thing too. So it rather seems that the stigma depends on having a career than having kids. Having kids is just a common reason for why many women might not have the time to have a career but not the only one.
Nor should we stigmatize those that do not have a career and do not have children. Because that's a thing too. So it rather seems that the stigma depends on having a career than having kids. Having kids is just a common reason for why many women might not have the time to have a career but not the only one.
"I think there’s this idea that all men love career life because it pays the bills. In reality it’s far from a pipe dream existence."
I completely agree.
I completely agree.
> Why do women have to emulate men to be valuable?
I don't think it's a men vs women issue.
Our current society is structured in such a way that work is necessary to survive & thrive - it is usually not possible to take a lengthy break from work without financial & career consequences.
Whether you are taking that break for childcare or (to pick a typical men's stereotype) drinking beer & having BBQ's with your friends every day doesn't make a difference.
I don't think it's a men vs women issue.
Our current society is structured in such a way that work is necessary to survive & thrive - it is usually not possible to take a lengthy break from work without financial & career consequences.
Whether you are taking that break for childcare or (to pick a typical men's stereotype) drinking beer & having BBQ's with your friends every day doesn't make a difference.
> presented a false promise by progressives
I think this is a poor framing for the rest of your comment, which is essentially a feminist critique of patriarchy and capitalism, and how patriarchy/capitalism is a harmful structure to men as well. Progressives are totally on board with this.
I think this is a poor framing for the rest of your comment, which is essentially a feminist critique of patriarchy and capitalism, and how patriarchy/capitalism is a harmful structure to men as well. Progressives are totally on board with this.
I was on the train to goofball-ville a long, long time ago because I thought the goofballs were the only ones making these critiques of binarist advocacy focused on one part of the problem. Fortunately I found that feminists made them earlier and better than any MRA type person could ever hope to. Give me any number of Judith Butlers or bell hookses over the sharpest "intellectual dark web" genius.
+1000
It’s just way easier to help women achieve success in a way that helps capitalists than it is to push for better working conditions for parents. But pushing for better working conditions isn’t impossible either, and the US is an extreme outlier in how hostile it is to working parents.
It’s just way easier to help women achieve success in a way that helps capitalists than it is to push for better working conditions for parents. But pushing for better working conditions isn’t impossible either, and the US is an extreme outlier in how hostile it is to working parents.
Fixing this would require raising wages to the point where a single income can support a family. Until that’s the case, both parents have to work unless you’re wealthy (not a high earner; actually wealthy). I would just ask yourself who in society benefits from this situation and who loses. It doesn’t have to be this way, but we keep electing politicians who promise to keep it this way (on both sides of the aisle).
If the US had a viable left it would be different; but we don’t. Other countries have solved these problems to some degree. We need to stop acting like taking care of people and funding social programs is the next step to Stalinism (but again, think of who is saying this and how it threatens their power).
If the US had a viable left it would be different; but we don’t. Other countries have solved these problems to some degree. We need to stop acting like taking care of people and funding social programs is the next step to Stalinism (but again, think of who is saying this and how it threatens their power).
That clearly isn't the financial situation in the USA. Here I am, a software developer, supporting a family of 14 on a single income. I'm definitely not wealthy.
I couldn't do that in Manhattan of course, so I don't live in Manhattan.
I couldn't do that in Manhattan of course, so I don't live in Manhattan.
[deleted]
I couldn't agree more. I've been wondering if we're moving further or closer to the ideal you describe. As more excluded groups move towards unfettered capitalism, I wonder if we'll be lift with a huge gap to fill in the "bleeding heart" jobs, e.g. being a home maker, social worker, etc.
> Of course women should follow their heart and we should build a society that allows them to do so on equal terms, but we should not discourage homemaking and stigmatize people who want to raise children.
I think that many women do actually have the desire to be mothers in their hearts, and that they repress this desire in the current social context because having children is no longer something that confers high status upon you.
Changing that would fix the birth rate. As a man, I do actually feel empowered and somehow more complete and grounded by virtue of having a family; but I know that before I had kids, I didn't really look at dads that way. Changing that perception, returning the family to a position of honor rather than just portraying it as a drag that stops you from doing all the great fun stuff out there in the world, would do wonders on that front.
Sometimes it feels like a concerted effort has taken place to knock the family off of the pedestal.
I think that many women do actually have the desire to be mothers in their hearts, and that they repress this desire in the current social context because having children is no longer something that confers high status upon you.
Changing that would fix the birth rate. As a man, I do actually feel empowered and somehow more complete and grounded by virtue of having a family; but I know that before I had kids, I didn't really look at dads that way. Changing that perception, returning the family to a position of honor rather than just portraying it as a drag that stops you from doing all the great fun stuff out there in the world, would do wonders on that front.
Sometimes it feels like a concerted effort has taken place to knock the family off of the pedestal.
Somebody is down voting you, possibly because of the non-gender-neutral language, but I agree with your message: we currently overvalue wealth and job status and undervalue the joy of raising a family.
I switched to a 4-day week to find a better work-life balance and couldn't be happier. Time with my kids is more valuable than the salary cut.
I switched to a 4-day week to find a better work-life balance and couldn't be happier. Time with my kids is more valuable than the salary cut.
I get downvoted continually because I post edgy things like "eating meat is okay" and "you should consider having a family" etc. I'm used to it, comment karma is largely meaningless, and sometimes the rate limiting helps make sure I have composed my thoughts well before responding.
Very envious of your 4-day week! I do 6-7 days worth of work in 5 days and it's slowly killing me. Still finding time for the kids somehow, but the result is no sleep or recreation time for myself... the switch from office to WFH life has not been a blessing in terms of work/life balance.
Very envious of your 4-day week! I do 6-7 days worth of work in 5 days and it's slowly killing me. Still finding time for the kids somehow, but the result is no sleep or recreation time for myself... the switch from office to WFH life has not been a blessing in terms of work/life balance.
Been there, done that. Burned out. Twice.
Eventually learned that I can't achieve everything I want on every facet of my life. I am not superhuman. The day only has 24 hours.
Something had to give. I was in a position in which I could afford to work less, so that's what I did. Now I'm mediocre at a few things in my life rather than being great at one at the cost of everything else, and I couldn't be happier with that decision.
Eventually learned that I can't achieve everything I want on every facet of my life. I am not superhuman. The day only has 24 hours.
Something had to give. I was in a position in which I could afford to work less, so that's what I did. Now I'm mediocre at a few things in my life rather than being great at one at the cost of everything else, and I couldn't be happier with that decision.
There's wisdom there. Maybe I will find a way to step back a little when I move on to my next gig...
The only logical answer here is youth. The younger you are the more fertile you are. This is true for both men and women, but more true for women. If you want children at some point in life then prioritize children first and early.
I know, this puts your ambitious career on hold for a while and start ups require huge ambition. Still, start up opportunities will not be hyper critically different in the future than they are now. In the future you may not be able to have children.
This is so completely clear based upon my commute to work. Closer to the downtown where I live there are all kinds of clinics for young mothers in mostly poorer areas. Where I work is the wealthiest county, per capita, in Texas and there are fertility clinics lining the street. That difference is striking. People who put their careers first tend to have more trouble having children and are willing to pay massive sums of money to fix biology.
I know, this puts your ambitious career on hold for a while and start ups require huge ambition. Still, start up opportunities will not be hyper critically different in the future than they are now. In the future you may not be able to have children.
This is so completely clear based upon my commute to work. Closer to the downtown where I live there are all kinds of clinics for young mothers in mostly poorer areas. Where I work is the wealthiest county, per capita, in Texas and there are fertility clinics lining the street. That difference is striking. People who put their careers first tend to have more trouble having children and are willing to pay massive sums of money to fix biology.
I feel like part of the problem is the obsession in media and social circles with young success. I see lists like Forbes 30 under 30, 40 under 40, and the celebration of young billionaires who are worshipped and held up as the example of what high performers should strive to be, and its quite unhealthy. I wish there were more stories about people who found success in their 40's, 50's and beyond, especially the ones who took time to fail, learn from it, and apply it later in life.
Yeah, but those people are the one-in-100-million types.
Most people have lack-luster careers in their 20s, which pick up in their 30s and peak in their 40s-50s. It makes a lot of sense for the average person to prioritize family building in their early 20s so that the kids are more self-sufficient right at the time where your career is taking off.
Plus, if your blessed enough to have parents who can help out, having babies when your parents are in their 40s-50s is substantially better than when they are 60+. My parents (50s) do really well at caring for their grandkids while my in-laws (60s) actually aren't capable of being alone with their grandkids, aunts or uncles "come to visit" anytime they watch the kids.
Most people have lack-luster careers in their 20s, which pick up in their 30s and peak in their 40s-50s. It makes a lot of sense for the average person to prioritize family building in their early 20s so that the kids are more self-sufficient right at the time where your career is taking off.
Plus, if your blessed enough to have parents who can help out, having babies when your parents are in their 40s-50s is substantially better than when they are 60+. My parents (50s) do really well at caring for their grandkids while my in-laws (60s) actually aren't capable of being alone with their grandkids, aunts or uncles "come to visit" anytime they watch the kids.
> It makes a lot of sense for the average person to prioritize family building in their early 20s
I'd say it used to make sense before the late 1970's when wages started stagnating. As the gap has grown the average person in their early 20's has to struggle to afford to pay for their own basic needs, much less trying to afford to have kids. Once their career is starting to pick up in their 30s they finally have the financial situation to start considering kids.
I'd say it used to make sense before the late 1970's when wages started stagnating. As the gap has grown the average person in their early 20's has to struggle to afford to pay for their own basic needs, much less trying to afford to have kids. Once their career is starting to pick up in their 30s they finally have the financial situation to start considering kids.
Oddly, the wage stagnation really took off as we doubled the workforce over less than a generation...
> It makes a lot of sense for the average person to prioritize family building in their early 20s so that the kids are more self-sufficient right at the time where your career is taking off.
It does make a lot of sense, but my point is that's not what people are doing. The ages that women have their first babies have been increasing [0], and a large part of that is that women are more focused on their careers in their 20's than they have been in the past [1].
[0] : https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/04/upshot/up-bir...
[1] : https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2020/05/01/new-stud...
It does make a lot of sense, but my point is that's not what people are doing. The ages that women have their first babies have been increasing [0], and a large part of that is that women are more focused on their careers in their 20's than they have been in the past [1].
[0] : https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/04/upshot/up-bir...
[1] : https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2020/05/01/new-stud...
I wonder if "children raised mostly by their grandparents" will start to become more common. There's been a rise in multi-generational households lately due to pandemic shifts.
Maybe younger parents who are also clawing their way up the career ladder will be able to take advantage of this situation to offload some parenting to their own parents, and then pay it forward when their own kids have children later on? Might be the only practical way to have kids in your 20s these days.
Maybe younger parents who are also clawing their way up the career ladder will be able to take advantage of this situation to offload some parenting to their own parents, and then pay it forward when their own kids have children later on? Might be the only practical way to have kids in your 20s these days.
I kinda wish it would. Anecdotally, as a dual income household grandparental assistance was indispensable in raising our baby, and I've sorely missed it since the pandemic hit and no one's visiting any more. I recognize how lucky we were to have that available, since not everyone does.
I think it can also have great benefits for the grandparents, who find a new sense of fulfillment and purpose and something to fill their time later in life. It reminds me of the studies on combining preschools and nursing homes showing positive outcomes for both populations. Also, intuitively, multi-generational households were the norm throughout human history before industrialization and economic centralization encouraged "leave your family behind and go Seek Your Fortune".
I think it can also have great benefits for the grandparents, who find a new sense of fulfillment and purpose and something to fill their time later in life. It reminds me of the studies on combining preschools and nursing homes showing positive outcomes for both populations. Also, intuitively, multi-generational households were the norm throughout human history before industrialization and economic centralization encouraged "leave your family behind and go Seek Your Fortune".
Adoption is another logical answer that can be very rewarding. All of us in the family I grew up in were adopted as infants. It's more expensive than birthing your own children but I imagine parents that left their fertile years focused on a career would be able to afford adoption.
In most places adoption is also very expensive. For some absurd reason prospective adopting parents must prove they are worthy of raising children to the state, while biological parents don't have to prove anything.
Children are taken off the parents to protect them from harm. We can only justify that if we then protect them from harm, and that means not placing them with abusive parents.
Because orphans are wards of the state, and if the state thinks you would do a worse job providing for them why would they hand the child over?
[deleted]
This advice is likely economically bad though. Capital now is better than capital later. I would think money made early and saved by not having children and invested will end up being much more then what will be spent on a fertility clinic later.
If your only goal is to accumulate capital over your lifespan, then you won't have children at all, since they're tremendously expensive and have no dollar return.
They're a great way to add some diversity to your retirement portfolio. Young able bodies that can get a job and provide you with food and shelter in your old age are the original inflation proof investment. Also, kids are awesome.
>Young able bodies that can get a job... are the original inflation proof investment.
Not quite sure that is true: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Mk1AG.jpg
>Also, kids are awesome.
If I am a dollar optimizer, the only thing I care about is money. How much can I sell "awesome" for? Can I skip a step and sell the children directly?
Not quite sure that is true: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Mk1AG.jpg
>Also, kids are awesome.
If I am a dollar optimizer, the only thing I care about is money. How much can I sell "awesome" for? Can I skip a step and sell the children directly?
Children have massive potentials for dollar return. Not least because you can't buy the type of care your child might give you in old age for any price. But also because if they succeed, then you have access to their networks, which can also be worth quite a lot.
You won't be able to calculate a precise number, but the saying "It's not what you know, it's who you know" shows the dollar price of networks is very high.
You won't be able to calculate a precise number, but the saying "It's not what you know, it's who you know" shows the dollar price of networks is very high.
Unfortunately, that is the other side of the coin. Most people who have children at young ages tend to be less well off financially for the rest of their lives than people who wait until late to have children. That is simply because time and principle are the only factors that really matter in building wealth.
This difference can also be taken to absurd extremes though. I honestly wonder why single people without children in my line of work aren't millionaires just based upon the compensation of their day jobs. After having 5 military deployments I can live in a cardboard box and would require only the cheapest of cars to commute to work. I don't spend money very often.
This difference can also be taken to absurd extremes though. I honestly wonder why single people without children in my line of work aren't millionaires just based upon the compensation of their day jobs. After having 5 military deployments I can live in a cardboard box and would require only the cheapest of cars to commute to work. I don't spend money very often.
> I honestly wonder why single people without children in my line of work aren't millionaires just based upon the compensation of their day jobs.
I'm not sure that people who never have children necessarily end up with more wealth than people who do have children, due to psychological impacts.
Having a kid can inspire parents to get their shit together and succeed financially and think about the future, compared to a single person just spending on their hobbies and playing video games.
I'm not sure that people who never have children necessarily end up with more wealth than people who do have children, due to psychological impacts.
Having a kid can inspire parents to get their shit together and succeed financially and think about the future, compared to a single person just spending on their hobbies and playing video games.
Mother's age at birth directly affects a child's health and life outcomes [1]. It is impossible to replace a woman's 20s with any amount of money.
[1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-1...
[1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-1...
Minor nit, this article is mostly about how teenage mothers result in worse outcomes, and talks about the many advantages older mothers have up to over 35 when complications dominate the better resources older mothers tend to have.
It's certainly economically worse, sure, but on the other hand you might be optimizing for other things. I for one would like to know my grandkids, and if I have my first kid at 40, and my kid has their first kid at 40, I'll have likely died of old age before my first grandkid reaches high school. Plus, I really like the idea of my kids being out of the house before my 60s. Factor those in with the studies about the relationship between the health of children and the age of the parents, and I'm willing to trade some potential income for those considerations (although that has limits, and having kids early can have quite substantial economic downsides, especially if you're a woman, and doubly especially if you end up out of the workforce entirely to raise them).
The chances of having a kid with a serious disorder go up dramatically for older mothers (and recent research shows this is true for fathers too). Even if we decide only to care about economics and not the kids health, health issues are expensive.
Can you point to the 'dramatic' risks for older fathers? Usually it is a minor change in chance blown up by sensational press.
First hit on Google: https://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/20100208/autism-risk...
77% increase seems pretty dramatic to me.
77% increase seems pretty dramatic to me.
That stat is for mothers. He asked for fathers.
Another alternative is to design your startup around a very low burn rate and change nothing else in your life. I mean, if it is going to take 5-10 years as the blogger claims, what's 8-12 years if you get to tick all the other boxes in life?
8-12 years of child rearing is very expensive. That's without even taking into compounding returns from working longer hours, seniority, experience, and investments.
The blog post starts with your same premise: pull out all the stops on working hard. It's just a choice. Why not have a startup that takes longer to grow?
To make the point clear: children raised by young and growing parents and different from children raised by old and established parents. Slow startups are different from fast startups. No judgement, they are just different. But the premise that a fast startup is the only way to do a startup is false. It's just choices for different outcomes.
To make the point clear: children raised by young and growing parents and different from children raised by old and established parents. Slow startups are different from fast startups. No judgement, they are just different. But the premise that a fast startup is the only way to do a startup is false. It's just choices for different outcomes.
I am the child of two young parents who had to drop out of college to raise me and my siblings, eventually on my father's "lifestyle business" when working multiple jobs didn't balance the books, so I am well aware of the tradeoffs. In my experience though it's not a question of just adjusting your lifestyle for many people, it's a question of financial survival.
My parents have not come close to being financially recovered relative to later-parents a decade after we've all left the house. The delay you are talking about compounds to absolutely massive differences in my experience. Trying to multi-task both the other "life" check boxes and your work is going to have large hidden costs on work because of these compounding advantages.
My parents have not come close to being financially recovered relative to later-parents a decade after we've all left the house. The delay you are talking about compounds to absolutely massive differences in my experience. Trying to multi-task both the other "life" check boxes and your work is going to have large hidden costs on work because of these compounding advantages.
If you have very good health insurance then the main cost for having children is going to be the increased cost of housing, which can be a capital investment. In addition to mortgage deduction, families also get deductions for children so there really isn't much to be saved by not having children until later in life.
It's almost as if human social norms solved this dilemma by division of labor: men bear the brunt of earning capital, while women are freed up to have and raise children.
The women's "empowerment" movement in this context can be seen as a cynical ploy by capital to convince women their "power" is tied to earning wages and having a career instead of having a family and they must pursue economic independence over over strategic "dependence" on a husband to help them realize commons goals.
At the end of the day women, and men, will ultimately want what they want. The argument here is that in the grand scheme of things they want a family, and will regret early choices that threaten this goal long term. Whether they are distracted away from this goal by capitalist propaganda to increase the labor supply, or they combine forces to achieve it is the challenge.
People will argue "men and women should make their own choices and determine this for themselves". Yes, but what is the default cultural message nowadays? What is promoted as the norm? What is the institutional and political rhetoric around this question? Western liberal democratic, capitalist nations stand firmly on the side of promoting careerism for women over early motherhood and marriage.
The women's "empowerment" movement in this context can be seen as a cynical ploy by capital to convince women their "power" is tied to earning wages and having a career instead of having a family and they must pursue economic independence over over strategic "dependence" on a husband to help them realize commons goals.
At the end of the day women, and men, will ultimately want what they want. The argument here is that in the grand scheme of things they want a family, and will regret early choices that threaten this goal long term. Whether they are distracted away from this goal by capitalist propaganda to increase the labor supply, or they combine forces to achieve it is the challenge.
People will argue "men and women should make their own choices and determine this for themselves". Yes, but what is the default cultural message nowadays? What is promoted as the norm? What is the institutional and political rhetoric around this question? Western liberal democratic, capitalist nations stand firmly on the side of promoting careerism for women over early motherhood and marriage.
They also promote careerism for men, a notion that doesn't ever seem to come into question. It's true that only women can gestate and breast feed, but after that fatherhood and motherhood are very similar callings. Men could opt out of the capitalist summons to the labor supply just as easily as women, and it shouldn't have to fall entirely on women to choose between "careerism" and "motherhood".
If we shifted the norms to allow that, women would be able to make their decisions freely and fairly, rather than just accepting that the lion's share of of parenting should be up to them. Rhetoric that shifts solely to ending careerism for women, but not for men, does indeed disempower women.
If we shifted the norms to allow that, women would be able to make their decisions freely and fairly, rather than just accepting that the lion's share of of parenting should be up to them. Rhetoric that shifts solely to ending careerism for women, but not for men, does indeed disempower women.
Ultimately you're arguing for reality to change to fit your utopian whims. I'm saying, for the average couple, we should lean into reality.
Would it be great if we could all have it all? Of course. I'm more concerned with the actual happiness and fulfillment of people who really will regret not having started a family early, and instead wasted their efforts following the neo-liberal careerist path.
Someone's got to have the children and raise them. Someone's got to put in the time at work. Because of the time, effort and physical realities of women bearing children, for most couples the division of labor falls most efficiently on men putting in most of the time rising up the corporate ladder.
People that recognize this happy path and want to go their own way are welcome to it. But we shouldn't lie to people. We should be honest with men and women from a young age what reality is.
Would it be great if we could all have it all? Of course. I'm more concerned with the actual happiness and fulfillment of people who really will regret not having started a family early, and instead wasted their efforts following the neo-liberal careerist path.
Someone's got to have the children and raise them. Someone's got to put in the time at work. Because of the time, effort and physical realities of women bearing children, for most couples the division of labor falls most efficiently on men putting in most of the time rising up the corporate ladder.
People that recognize this happy path and want to go their own way are welcome to it. But we shouldn't lie to people. We should be honest with men and women from a young age what reality is.
> It's true that only women can gestate and breast feed,
If you have multiple children, that can add up to a significant chunk of prime career building years.
If you have multiple children, that can add up to a significant chunk of prime career building years.
time is worth more than money. I'm glad I spent some time in my 20s raising little tikes so I can have more time with them.
Having kids late in life is like a deathbed confessional. people just want to cross "birth children" off their list, but don't really think about being a mother/father for the rest of their life.
If you value career over family thats cool, but you wont get returns on "family-as-an-asset" if you invest late in life. Invest early for greater returns.
Having kids late in life is like a deathbed confessional. people just want to cross "birth children" off their list, but don't really think about being a mother/father for the rest of their life.
If you value career over family thats cool, but you wont get returns on "family-as-an-asset" if you invest late in life. Invest early for greater returns.
[deleted]
> Still, start up opportunities will not be hyper critically different in the future than they are now. In the future you may not be able to have children.
This is not accurate for people with kids. A startup is an all encompassing job that pays very little in the short term and has a small chance at ever paying out a large amount. The opportunity cost of a real job is enormous.
This is not accurate for people with kids. A startup is an all encompassing job that pays very little in the short term and has a small chance at ever paying out a large amount. The opportunity cost of a real job is enormous.
> The only logical answer here is youth.
No, the only real answer is that you are in no way required to reproduce. There are more than enough humans. Humanity is basically a plague.
No, the only real answer is that you are in no way required to reproduce. There are more than enough humans. Humanity is basically a plague.
> Humanity is basically a plague.
This succinctly states the premise behind a lot of progressive thinking.
This succinctly states the premise behind a lot of progressive thinking.
This is essentially ecofascism and is not compatible with a modern free society.
I actually like humanity, and I want it to persist. Many of my best friends are humans.
(I'm not trying to throw around "fascist" as a cheap insult: this is an actual ideology, and "humans are basically a plague" is a core tenent.)
I actually like humanity, and I want it to persist. Many of my best friends are humans.
(I'm not trying to throw around "fascist" as a cheap insult: this is an actual ideology, and "humans are basically a plague" is a core tenent.)
It's completely unethical to have kids and like another commenter has said brings a great disadvantage economically. I would suggest to anyone to not follow your advice.
edit: I won't be further commenting on the topic because the same people asking everyone "when are you going to have kids like me?" are just going to downvote. Yes, I rather see an end to humankind because that ends suffering. Less suffering in a universe is better than a universe that experienced more. Yes, nobody cares about the ones that wish they never had been born because of whatever reason that was inflicted upon them.
edit: I won't be further commenting on the topic because the same people asking everyone "when are you going to have kids like me?" are just going to downvote. Yes, I rather see an end to humankind because that ends suffering. Less suffering in a universe is better than a universe that experienced more. Yes, nobody cares about the ones that wish they never had been born because of whatever reason that was inflicted upon them.
The antinatalist point of view is incredibly damaging to the long term progress of our species.
I'm not intimately familiar with all the different strains of antinatalism, but I think that's kinda the point? an antinatalist would not consider funding existing people's retirements or possibly even the survival of the species to be sufficient justification for creating new conscious beings who cannot consent to their creation.
At which point that philosophy has completely jumped the shark.
The premise that the universe is somehow "better" with no conscious life is just silly sophistry.
The premise that the universe is somehow "better" with no conscious life is just silly sophistry.
> The premise that the universe is somehow "better" with no conscious life is just silly sophistry.
meh, no more than all the other moral philosophies. some are more practical than others, but none are more "true" than others.
meh, no more than all the other moral philosophies. some are more practical than others, but none are more "true" than others.
Seeing as a big chuck of what someone believes is culturally inherited from their parents, and thus hypothesizing that meme* survival partially follows parent-child relationships, I'd say that that's a problem that will end up self-correcting :)
* In the original Richard Dawkins sense, not in the funny gif sense.
* In the original Richard Dawkins sense, not in the funny gif sense.
Amusingly we have a case study for this: the Shakers.
"They practice a celibate and communal lifestyle, pacifism, uniform charismatic worship, and their model of equality of the sexes, which they institutionalized in their society in the 1780s."
Needless to say there's only 2 left.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers
"They practice a celibate and communal lifestyle, pacifism, uniform charismatic worship, and their model of equality of the sexes, which they institutionalized in their society in the 1780s."
Needless to say there's only 2 left.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers
You would think this is the case. But yet, they keep on reproducing while complaining bitterly about it.
Above commenter will likely have children very shortly.
Above commenter will likely have children very shortly.
> brings a great disadvantage economically
yeah but you forgot about my platinum, enterprise-grade DNA. really good for the economy as a whole.
Other people are going to have kids, their kids will encounter hardships and need problem solvers among the pack. Its unethical to deprive their posterity of my web-scale® DNA.
yeah but you forgot about my platinum, enterprise-grade DNA. really good for the economy as a whole.
Other people are going to have kids, their kids will encounter hardships and need problem solvers among the pack. Its unethical to deprive their posterity of my web-scale® DNA.
This could work as Tinder bio. It’s unethical to deprive future generations of my DNA.
That's what the corporations want you to believe because they want you to spend as much time and energy as possible being a cog in their machine and source the next generation of workers from the lowest bidder on the global scale.
What impact do you foresee any economic gains from childlessness having in 100 years, if your advice is followed universally? Who will inherit those gains?
I believe the context for the advice is directed to whoever is capable of having children. So, economic gains are meaningless to them when they're dead in 100 years.
Put another way: let's say everyone who is capable of children follows your advice. To whom are these economic gains meaningful in 100 years? Who would their parents be?
What you're implying is meaningless to the ones that are dead. So maybe you can now realize why I wrote my response and it was directed towards anyone considering conceiving a child.
OK, from a pure hedonistic view - let's say at some time in the future, there are no more humans left. Why would it make sense to invest anything into economic gain in the time before that happens? You'd rather run the economy into the ground to extract as much value as you could from it, before the end of human existence. You - or else someone else who is the last human alive - are "leaving something on the table", so to speak. Otherwise they are just leaving value around for wildlife.
In other words there would be a time, maybe dependent on the rate at which remaining humans can unwind the human economy, past which any effort at collective economic gain wouldn't be worth it.
In other words there would be a time, maybe dependent on the rate at which remaining humans can unwind the human economy, past which any effort at collective economic gain wouldn't be worth it.
I think of this as a non-issue; either my partner, or a friend, or a charity of choice will inherit my gains if I don't spend them all enjoying life first.
[deleted]
It's unethical to have kids? I don't follow.
That was my interpretation. There are some antinatalists out there.
Can I just say we should really stop using these 'turf' labels, the flat-earthers, the anti-vaxxers, now this 'antinatilist' label.
It makes it seem like a binomial thing, you are either in my group or in the other. Discussion stops being about the ideas and more adversarial, focused on taking sides.
Also it creates a group identity which in my opinion makes it harder for people to change their minds based on discussion or new info.
If my aunt tells me vaccines are bad I might trust her. But if there is whole group of 'anti-vaxxer' people who make me feel good about myself then I suppose I am now an anti-vaxxer and that becomes an identity more so than an opinion which would be more fluid and mutable.
It makes it seem like a binomial thing, you are either in my group or in the other. Discussion stops being about the ideas and more adversarial, focused on taking sides.
Also it creates a group identity which in my opinion makes it harder for people to change their minds based on discussion or new info.
If my aunt tells me vaccines are bad I might trust her. But if there is whole group of 'anti-vaxxer' people who make me feel good about myself then I suppose I am now an anti-vaxxer and that becomes an identity more so than an opinion which would be more fluid and mutable.
You might find the following interesting: https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/choosing-children-ethical...
I, for one, would never bring another life into this world and while so much suffering occurs. It's ethical to adopt contrary to conceive children.
I am certain your parents had same ideas. Until they decided to have babies. Having kids is powerful natural drive after finding suitable enough mates.
Statistically, you will have children in future, if you’re under 30 right now.
Statistically, you will have children in future, if you’re under 30 right now.
statistically, you will be attracted to women, if you're a man right now. and yet...
Attractive men and women will find each other and make babies, as they have done for thousands of years.
Instagram, Raya, Tinder make it much easier for attractive people to find each other efficiently.
Instagram, Raya, Tinder make it much easier for attractive people to find each other efficiently.
wwww4alll(1)
My two cent : we got the whole ''parental leave'' thing wrong because we make business pay and the individual pay the costs. Big firm might have plenty of ressources to deal with it and 'not appear sexist', but a startup or small business will not. It should be a government program to help both the individual and his employer.
In Canada it was introduced as part of the Employment Insurance system. I think that’s a good way to look at it and spread the costs across the workforce. It doesn’t replace your full wages (I think it’s 55%, though some employers top it up with private insurance), but the parents basically get a year of wage support to divide between the two of them. Your employer also has to hire you back.
Hm I beg to disagree. Canadian business owner I speak with in privacy do not like the system. Many employers will try to infer and avoid a ''pregnancy risk'' by any legal mean possible. Why? A small business does not have time or ressources to deal with the constent team restructuration that a new baby causes. It does not matters how competent you are if you need a 6 month learning curve, then be replaced by a temporary contract, then be re-hired in 1 year. Saying otherwise is just SJW wishful thinking.
I'm not against paid leave or work-family balance. But the current canadian system simply assumes that its cost does not exist because they are distributed, without thinking of the consequences. Its just bad populist policy, and make sexism the most economic choice for a lot of decision makers.
My proposal : why can't we pay women for the work they actually do? Childcare and all that? Why can't we put ''raising a family'' as part of your linkedin profile? Dealing with babies certainly prepare you to deal with toxic coworkers.
I'm not against paid leave or work-family balance. But the current canadian system simply assumes that its cost does not exist because they are distributed, without thinking of the consequences. Its just bad populist policy, and make sexism the most economic choice for a lot of decision makers.
My proposal : why can't we pay women for the work they actually do? Childcare and all that? Why can't we put ''raising a family'' as part of your linkedin profile? Dealing with babies certainly prepare you to deal with toxic coworkers.
Why is this specific to females? This happens to males indirectly. Unless your fabulously wealthy and can basically hire a 25 Y/O wife/Surrogate Mother, most men have steadily declining chance to have a child as they get older too. Simply because the available pool of fertile females willing to have a child with them is declining.
That is not even to mention actual biological problems that make men functionally infertile. So while its technically possible for men to have children until they are dead, realistically a large number are loosing their fertility as well. I know couples in their 30's/early 40's where it turned out to be the male causing the problems.
That is not even to mention actual biological problems that make men functionally infertile. So while its technically possible for men to have children until they are dead, realistically a large number are loosing their fertility as well. I know couples in their 30's/early 40's where it turned out to be the male causing the problems.
I think it's implied that it's easier for men to have children and not drop the ball on the career; so they don't need to wait until they are old.
A newborn is a much bigger disruption for the mother than the father. This is biological but also cultural (e.g. in some EU countries only women get a months long paid vacation after birth).
Maybe.. OTOH, in the US it seems the common expectation these days it that men pull their weight when it comes to raising children. God knows I would have gotten divorced if I continued to work till 10PM leaving my wife at home with a young child.
Which maybe, if the man is ok with biologically having a child they see a couple times a month that works, otherwise most men are going to be up feeding the baby all night long too, and picking them up from school, staying home to take care of them when they are sick.
So, just the split work/family focus is going to remove most men from the competition to be top dog at the office unless they are successful enough, and can find a women willing to be a housewife.
Women can probably pull this off in reverse if they are successful enough, and find an "artist" or someone already outside of the traditional male career paths too. Biologically its not unheard of for women to work until their due date and then return to work in a week or so, leaving the child with a caregiver (frequently an aging parent/etc).
Of course if she wants to participate in the child's upbringing the split focus issues will likely arise too.
Hence my comment that to imagine this is strictly a female problem is an oversimplification. Yes, the problems are slightly different, but to imagine a man can work his way up to some level of success and then find a younger woman willing to be a housewife to a 20 year older man is a risky proposition too.
Which maybe, if the man is ok with biologically having a child they see a couple times a month that works, otherwise most men are going to be up feeding the baby all night long too, and picking them up from school, staying home to take care of them when they are sick.
So, just the split work/family focus is going to remove most men from the competition to be top dog at the office unless they are successful enough, and can find a women willing to be a housewife.
Women can probably pull this off in reverse if they are successful enough, and find an "artist" or someone already outside of the traditional male career paths too. Biologically its not unheard of for women to work until their due date and then return to work in a week or so, leaving the child with a caregiver (frequently an aging parent/etc).
Of course if she wants to participate in the child's upbringing the split focus issues will likely arise too.
Hence my comment that to imagine this is strictly a female problem is an oversimplification. Yes, the problems are slightly different, but to imagine a man can work his way up to some level of success and then find a younger woman willing to be a housewife to a 20 year older man is a risky proposition too.
We all keep talking about providing more facilities to working mothers but no-one talks about providing the social structure to keep previous generations together with current generation. Its like a taboo to advocate grandparents staying with parents and children.
There was a reason my parents could devote their energies towards whatever they were doing outside of raising me without having to go to extremes of waiting till their 40s etc - my grandma/aunts were with us. I was basically taken care of by a different loving person every few hours whenever my mother was busy. Granted my parents didn't have to deal with the stress of startups/corporate grinds but I'm sure they had their own share of stresses of a different kind (e.g. none of the technological comforts/tools we take for granted today). But atleast they got to deal with those stresses without just having each other for support. Sure, there were conflicts but then those are everywhere anyway. Unfortunately with people growing up in nuclear families, they do not have the background/emotional tools/training to deal with such conflicts creating a self-perpetuating cycle.
There was a reason my parents could devote their energies towards whatever they were doing outside of raising me without having to go to extremes of waiting till their 40s etc - my grandma/aunts were with us. I was basically taken care of by a different loving person every few hours whenever my mother was busy. Granted my parents didn't have to deal with the stress of startups/corporate grinds but I'm sure they had their own share of stresses of a different kind (e.g. none of the technological comforts/tools we take for granted today). But atleast they got to deal with those stresses without just having each other for support. Sure, there were conflicts but then those are everywhere anyway. Unfortunately with people growing up in nuclear families, they do not have the background/emotional tools/training to deal with such conflicts creating a self-perpetuating cycle.
I imagine a futuristic society would have dorm-like options for people to have children while in college/graduate school.
Having a supportive community in an educational environment would be a win/win/win for all.
As is mentioned elsewhere, it is not as fun raising kids when you are older and slower.
It’s great being able to experience youth with the new youth.
People with kids will self report higher levels of meaning and focus in their work, so a village/dorm like environment in a university might be an ideal place to take advantage of such a situation.
Having a supportive community in an educational environment would be a win/win/win for all.
As is mentioned elsewhere, it is not as fun raising kids when you are older and slower.
It’s great being able to experience youth with the new youth.
People with kids will self report higher levels of meaning and focus in their work, so a village/dorm like environment in a university might be an ideal place to take advantage of such a situation.
Or get a husband that takes care of the kids. The woman will of course have carry the children in her womb, which will be some tough months. But after that the husband can do almost everything. If she feels that it is important to feed the baby breast milk the first months, excellent pumps can be bought.
This is a much better option than waiting until it almost is to late.
(I’m not talking out of my ass: I’m currently a stay at home dad so my wife can focus on her career. Soon our second kid is a year and will start kindergarten, and I’ll start working 75%).
This is a much better option than waiting until it almost is to late.
(I’m not talking out of my ass: I’m currently a stay at home dad so my wife can focus on her career. Soon our second kid is a year and will start kindergarten, and I’ll start working 75%).
I'd love to be a stay at home dad: I enjoy taking care of and spending time with children, and I like doing household labor. It's not like I'd be bringing nothing financial to the partnership, either: I'd be bringing substantial assets into the partnership, such that my wife wouldn't need to worry about my retirement or even day-to-day expenses.
The reality, though, is that most women want someone ambitious (in the very limited, traditional sense of ambition), and aspiring to be a stay at home dad is considered at best neutral and more often a negative or dealbreaker when it comes to forming relationships.
This is true even of (or perhaps especially of) career-focused women, despite the fact that their male counterparts are more than happy to date and marry less-ambitious women with the intention of a division of labor conducive to family rearing.
The reality, though, is that most women want someone ambitious (in the very limited, traditional sense of ambition), and aspiring to be a stay at home dad is considered at best neutral and more often a negative or dealbreaker when it comes to forming relationships.
This is true even of (or perhaps especially of) career-focused women, despite the fact that their male counterparts are more than happy to date and marry less-ambitious women with the intention of a division of labor conducive to family rearing.
This is great advice. I was in a similar position till we moved to the Bay Area, which flipped the financial calculus.
Other than breast-feeding, Dads can do everything that's required and pumping works out great for everyone.
Other than breast-feeding, Dads can do everything that's required and pumping works out great for everyone.
>pumping works out great for everyone.
Pumping is an enormous pain in the ass compared to breastfeeding. All the moms I know who had to pump wish they never had to pump.
Pumping is an enormous pain in the ass compared to breastfeeding. All the moms I know who had to pump wish they never had to pump.
And for some women breastfeeding is a pain (often literally) and pumping at least works.
Yes, I should have acknowledged that is a problem for many also.
> pumping works out great for everyone
You might want to ask a few (other) women about that. My partner very much dislikes pumping. Both the physical aspect as well as the emotional/psychological side of it. But I get what you're saying and I agree with the sentiment.
You might want to ask a few (other) women about that. My partner very much dislikes pumping. Both the physical aspect as well as the emotional/psychological side of it. But I get what you're saying and I agree with the sentiment.
Also important to remember is that breast milk isn’t essential. There are of course many studies that show that breast milk is great in so many ways, but on the other hand, a lot of perfectly healthy adults were fed formula, so maybe it’s nothing anyone should give up their career for.
Maybe I just didn't find the studies but I wish we knew more about the benefits of breastmilk and the act of breastfeeding (e.g. social, hormonal) and the benefits/downsides of formula.
I have this subjective feeling about one clearly being better than the other in so many ways but it's nothing rooted in facts. All the information I can find on the internet don't seem trustworthy mainly because it's so difficult to control for the socio-economic realities around who breastfeeds and who feeds formula. Plus I suppose it's difficult to do a blind trial at least when it comes to breastfeeding vs bottle feeding.
I have this subjective feeling about one clearly being better than the other in so many ways but it's nothing rooted in facts. All the information I can find on the internet don't seem trustworthy mainly because it's so difficult to control for the socio-economic realities around who breastfeeds and who feeds formula. Plus I suppose it's difficult to do a blind trial at least when it comes to breastfeeding vs bottle feeding.
This is a fine thing that can work for some people and not for others: it's really hard to live a decent life on a single (tech!) income in Silicon Valley if you're not already wealthy, and young people may not have enough saved up to take a year off.
I'm currently working in my home office while my partner is looking after our newborn full time and I'm jealous as hell. I genuinely with I could stay at home longer than just a couple of weeks/a few months and be a full time stay at home parent. Unfortunately it doesn't work for us financially but I wish it did.
[deleted]
Do you think people would receive your advice the same way if the sexes were reversed?
The situation where the sexes are reversed is the norm. That is what almost all successful career men do: they let the wife take care of the kids.
No, but that doesn't mean the advice is bad. Two consenting adults should be able to divide up family responsibilities however they see fit.
[deleted]
Your fertility drops exponentially after age 35, and the risks for both the mother and child significantly increase. And since it takes ~2 years to make a baby, ideally you should start having kids no later than 35 - 2k, where k is the number of kids you want. And you probably want at least one extra year in case anything goes wrong, which it often does.
IVF and egg freezing, while useful tools, don't really magically change this formula in any meaningful way.
IVF and egg freezing, while useful tools, don't really magically change this formula in any meaningful way.
Wait, why is the advice to 'do something invasive, risky, and unnatural' when the actual advice should be 'have children when you're younger, not older.'
Because that would violate the “I want to have my cake and eat it too” mantra.
“I want to make massive life altering choices and suffer no 2nd order effects.”
“I want to handicap others to compensate for my decisions”
It’s selfish, unfair, and morally wrong. When did the smart way of doing things in alignment with nature, become old, antiquated, and dumb?
I find the ignorant snobbishness of our modern world to be insane.
It’s selfish, unfair, and morally wrong. When did the smart way of doing things in alignment with nature, become old, antiquated, and dumb?
I find the ignorant snobbishness of our modern world to be insane.
Because society actively punishes people who do so. If having a child in your twenties is career suicide, it's only natural that people who aren't willing to give up their career prospects to have a child (would you?) will try to postpone it.
No, I would not.
Another few hours in the office isn’t worth endangering a child.
That’s selfish and stupid.
You shouldn't refrigerate your food. It's risky and unnatural. For the first 300,000 years of human history, people got along fine without refrigeration - why don't you just hunt and gather like you were intended to?
IVF, egg and embryo freezing, and related technologies are modern miracles that allow people to live better lives by increasing their fertility options.
IVF, egg and embryo freezing, and related technologies are modern miracles that allow people to live better lives by increasing their fertility options.
That's an obvious false equivalence. While technically 'unnatural' refrigeration is not 'invasive and risky.'
The vast majority of pre-modern humans were likely starving or malnourished, and those problems are mostly solved in the modern era, thanks in part to refrigeration.
We don't really have good solutions for women trying to have children into their 40s, though I fully support the advancement of fertility technologies! But still the *best* advice is to have children when you're younger.
The vast majority of pre-modern humans were likely starving or malnourished, and those problems are mostly solved in the modern era, thanks in part to refrigeration.
We don't really have good solutions for women trying to have children into their 40s, though I fully support the advancement of fertility technologies! But still the *best* advice is to have children when you're younger.
> The vast majority of pre-modern humans were likely starving or malnourished, and those problems are mostly solved in the modern era, thanks in part to refrigeration.
What makes you think that? I find it more likely that early hominids fared about as well as contemporary chimpanzees. Some starving, some being malnourished, but definitely not a vast majority.
What makes you think that? I find it more likely that early hominids fared about as well as contemporary chimpanzees. Some starving, some being malnourished, but definitely not a vast majority.
If you look at the average height differences from pre-modern humans to today, I think it's fair to say that the majority of them were malnourished.
EDIT: And when I say 'pre-modern' humans I mean 'pre-modern era' as in before the industrial revolution and refrigeration, not before genetically/physiologically modern humans. It sounds like you understand me as saying ~200k years ago, rather than the ~200 years ago I intended.
EDIT: And when I say 'pre-modern' humans I mean 'pre-modern era' as in before the industrial revolution and refrigeration, not before genetically/physiologically modern humans. It sounds like you understand me as saying ~200k years ago, rather than the ~200 years ago I intended.
"Got along fine" with half of the life expectancy, or less.
Refrigeration works. Food lasts longer when refrigerated because cold temperatures slow down the growth of bacteria and other organisms. In order for metabolism to occur, enzymes are necessary. Enzymes have an optimal operating temperature. It is a biochemical fact that the reaction rate of those enzymes will be slowed down by a refrigerator, slowing down the metabolism of organisms and the spoiling of food.
IVF is not a miracle. It's a last resort that doesn't even guarantee results. With IVF women have a chance to have children. The probability of success is always inferior compared to healthy women choosing to have children early. By choosing this route, these women face a significant risk of failure with serious consequences.
A lot of couples want to have children but do not succeed. IVF can help these people overcome real fertility issues. It was never meant to be used as an insurance policy by people with no medical impediment to reproduction.
IVF is not a miracle. It's a last resort that doesn't even guarantee results. With IVF women have a chance to have children. The probability of success is always inferior compared to healthy women choosing to have children early. By choosing this route, these women face a significant risk of failure with serious consequences.
A lot of couples want to have children but do not succeed. IVF can help these people overcome real fertility issues. It was never meant to be used as an insurance policy by people with no medical impediment to reproduction.
Because your actual advice also implicitly includes a 'just give up on having a career' part.
no it doesn't.
Look up 'motherhood penalty'. The wage gap between mothers and non-mothers is massive.
Being paid less because you took time off does not mean "no career". I know all about the gap because my wife lives it.
So? Does that make it bad advice?
I personally agree with your sentiment but the two provided advice examples are not comparable, it's not just about giving a birth but also raising your kids which can give your career a good break. Incidentally this perspective also reveals our sad state of priorities.
I think maybe a wider perspective is needed on this topic. Instead of the assumption that women should have more resources for fertility as a founder of a company or trying to run/work at a startup, let's examine why that assumption exists, which is men in a similar position.
Male founders also face hardships in rearing children when working demanding jobs, but less so than women, partly because of the luck of the genetic draw, and partly because as a culture we are more lenient and have less expectations of fathers. The good parent will have problems no matter their gender (but harder for women obviously, who carry the child to term), but men can get away with being more absent and less involved without as much judgement.
What if instead of taking at face value that people in these positions should have resources allocated to make it easier to raise children, we instead focus on their choices. They made a choice to go into a high risk venture for the possible payout of money and/or more control over their future. Worded in a more harsh way, what's being asked is "Why aren't more resources and attention focused on me while I attempt to play the lotto and become a millionaire, or work my high paying job?" Perhaps the answer to this should instead of providing additional support to women and men in child rearing in an industry that pays famously well and is getting less and less tethered to locale by the day, we instead decide to stigmatize fathers that focus more on their career than their children?
That's not to say I think we shouldn't as a society focus on making child rearing easier, especially for those without as many resources, but I'm not sure focusing on those that have chosen to make the trade-off already to pursue a demanding and risky career for the chance at a large payout is what we should be doing. If they benefit somewhat from societal changes, that's great, but I'm not really going to shed a tear over founders complaining how hard it is with a pregnancy or rearing a small child to raising funding for the next round, whether they be male or female. They've made very specific life choices to put themselves into that position, and I don't think it's out of bounds to say maybe taking the hard and risky path doesn't always pay off.
Note: This is probably way more harsh than I intend it to be, and it's not exactly a correct representation of my feelings on this, but I think it is a perspective worth considering. That is, to a small degree I'm playing devil's advocate here.
Male founders also face hardships in rearing children when working demanding jobs, but less so than women, partly because of the luck of the genetic draw, and partly because as a culture we are more lenient and have less expectations of fathers. The good parent will have problems no matter their gender (but harder for women obviously, who carry the child to term), but men can get away with being more absent and less involved without as much judgement.
What if instead of taking at face value that people in these positions should have resources allocated to make it easier to raise children, we instead focus on their choices. They made a choice to go into a high risk venture for the possible payout of money and/or more control over their future. Worded in a more harsh way, what's being asked is "Why aren't more resources and attention focused on me while I attempt to play the lotto and become a millionaire, or work my high paying job?" Perhaps the answer to this should instead of providing additional support to women and men in child rearing in an industry that pays famously well and is getting less and less tethered to locale by the day, we instead decide to stigmatize fathers that focus more on their career than their children?
That's not to say I think we shouldn't as a society focus on making child rearing easier, especially for those without as many resources, but I'm not sure focusing on those that have chosen to make the trade-off already to pursue a demanding and risky career for the chance at a large payout is what we should be doing. If they benefit somewhat from societal changes, that's great, but I'm not really going to shed a tear over founders complaining how hard it is with a pregnancy or rearing a small child to raising funding for the next round, whether they be male or female. They've made very specific life choices to put themselves into that position, and I don't think it's out of bounds to say maybe taking the hard and risky path doesn't always pay off.
Note: This is probably way more harsh than I intend it to be, and it's not exactly a correct representation of my feelings on this, but I think it is a perspective worth considering. That is, to a small degree I'm playing devil's advocate here.
I wonder if there are better models that might work with a bit of help from everyone involved, that don't amount to taking medical risks and delaying children more than any man ever would?
Such as: being a founder comes with a lot of work, but also some power. To the degree that bringing children to work is mostly a problem of co-workers rolling their eyes, could a confident founder make them stop doing that?
Since that would probably still be somewhat stressful, could a pair of founder-parents pull it off? And/or could on-site childcare make it work? For a VC-backed startup, the costs wouldn't seem to be prohibitive?
(I maybe naive here, considering some of the tales I've heard of how women are still seen/treated in the industry)
Such as: being a founder comes with a lot of work, but also some power. To the degree that bringing children to work is mostly a problem of co-workers rolling their eyes, could a confident founder make them stop doing that?
Since that would probably still be somewhat stressful, could a pair of founder-parents pull it off? And/or could on-site childcare make it work? For a VC-backed startup, the costs wouldn't seem to be prohibitive?
(I maybe naive here, considering some of the tales I've heard of how women are still seen/treated in the industry)
My partner is an academic. I am an academic. We both have tenure-track jobs in different universities -- and different countries. I really, _desperately_ want children some day; I don't quite have the guts to tell her _how much_ I _inherently know_ I do, but I think she knows, and I know that some day she does too -- but it won't work until we're in the same country. We're just getting to that point where we _really_ should start sprogging soon, but because of society, we can't. I know I'm in for a tough ride in the future, but I love her, don't want to leave her, and therefore don't like thinking about it and put my head in the sand.
Reminder that a few hundred years ago, people typically worked a few months out of the year, and were able to live the whole year. The source(s) of the reason(s) we need to work nearly 5/7 of the year now is one element of why this is even an issue.
As a society, generalizing, aren't we better off having kids? So, should'nt we start optimizing such that it leans a lot more to being supporting of women who have children in their prime, with opportunities provided once their children past middle-school or whatever the age the mother feels like she does not need to be as hands-on?
Just like we have affirmative action for races today, can't we have affirmative action for moms who are returning back to their careers after a decade out, with specialized courses to help them catch up, etc.
This way, more women will feel incentivized to have babies and rear them without any guilt. Healthier children are a future healthier world.
Just like we have affirmative action for races today, can't we have affirmative action for moms who are returning back to their careers after a decade out, with specialized courses to help them catch up, etc.
This way, more women will feel incentivized to have babies and rear them without any guilt. Healthier children are a future healthier world.
thank you for writing about what must be a difficult topic to discuss, for the benefit of others.
A family needs 1 dedicated member to keep things together. You can't outsource parenthood. Society needs families that value raising children over money/careers. Being a parent is choosing to put another being's needs before yours. It's choosing sacrifice. Don't do it unless you're 100% sure about this. Having a child is not a milestone in your life. In many ways, it's the end of it. However, it will also teach you the value of patience, forgiveness, and generosity. And it will make you a kinder person as you age
Wow, that is pretty depressing just hearing your story. I am not a woman, but I feel like that I can empathize with you from your words.
Work isn't everything, and it is gradually and painful realization as you grew older.
Work isn't everything, and it is gradually and painful realization as you grew older.
Or delay the startup. Older founders are more successful, anyway. You don't have to give up family. Just wait until your kids moved out (or are teenagers and ignore you, anyway).
People who trade their happiness for money will lose their happiness and (statistically) their money as well.
People who trade their happiness for money will lose their happiness and (statistically) their money as well.
Thanks for pointing this out. It makes me so sad when I see my friends waiting too long and struggling with their fertility.
I empathize with how hard it is for a female founder in particular and for a woman in general when it comes to mixing children with a career.
That said the advice to freeze your eggs (ie work now, live later) rubs me the wrong way. I wish we could live in a society where people would not have to work themselves to death and were able to... you know... enjoy life
That said the advice to freeze your eggs (ie work now, live later) rubs me the wrong way. I wish we could live in a society where people would not have to work themselves to death and were able to... you know... enjoy life
Our society doesn't force or even encourage people to be startup founders -- they choose it for themselves. There are plenty of examples of classes of people who have to work harder than they should in an ideal society, but I'm not sure what point you're making with this particular one.
I think the overarching point they were making was about the difficulty women have with balancing a career with having a child(which is further exacerbated for women founders due to the increased workloads founders face).
I do agree though that choosing to be a founder then complaining about a poor, usually self imposed, work life balance is a bit silly.
I do agree though that choosing to be a founder then complaining about a poor, usually self imposed, work life balance is a bit silly.
being a founder is glamourised. Being rich is glamourised. What more encouragement do people need? Wealthy businesspeople are basically the symbol of social success.
There is an imperative to be a high earner due to skyrocketing housing, medical, and education costs in the United States. At the same time popular media like Wolf of Wall Street, The Social Network, and Shark Tank, show how life affirming and beneficial it is to gain wealth.
To many start-ups seem like a short cut - even if they are laughably not.
To many start-ups seem like a short cut - even if they are laughably not.
For highly skilled technical people and business leaders, we already do live in that society. There are many companies that will happily pay you entirely unreasonable amounts of money to work a 9-5 job. However, you can opt in to lifestyles where you work yourself to death in the hopes of getting even more excessive riches and fame than you would get by living a more relaxed lifestyle.
I don't want fame or riches.
I just want to build something nobody else has built.
I just want to build something nobody else has built.
You can do that as a hobby, or you can do it as a startup but treat the startup as a 9-5. (Your leisurely pace of work might hurt your chances of staying ahead of your competitors, but that's only important if you want the wealth and fame part.)
Hmm I don't think that's quite right.
In order for me to continue building something nobody has built, I need it to be generating revenue. And in order to generate revenue I need to stay ahead of the competition, which probably requires not treating it like a 9-5. So yes I'm pursuing money, but not to achieve vast personal wealth, but rather to ensure my (hopefully) novel business is long-term viable.
In order for me to continue building something nobody has built, I need it to be generating revenue. And in order to generate revenue I need to stay ahead of the competition, which probably requires not treating it like a 9-5. So yes I'm pursuing money, but not to achieve vast personal wealth, but rather to ensure my (hopefully) novel business is long-term viable.
I disagree with this - I think it's very much a reflection of the modern world being quite focused on profits and revenue - you can build an exceedingly successful thing that doesn't provide a clear revenue stream. It won't come with the glamour that other options may have but if you look at passion projects from things like open source libraries all the way down to dwarf fortress it's quite possible to make a living building a thing - it just won't give you 200k+ in annual income.
There is a place for artisanal projects in the modern world - a lot of creative folks subsist greatly on patreon as a source of income.
There is a place for artisanal projects in the modern world - a lot of creative folks subsist greatly on patreon as a source of income.
That's more of a crapshoot though. The vast majority of open source projects don't generate enough donations to sustain even a single developer. The vast majority of indie games don't experience the success of Dwarf Fortress.
A clear revenue model from the beginning makes it much more likely that you will be either A. long-term sustainable or B. call it quits before too much time is invested.
A clear revenue model from the beginning makes it much more likely that you will be either A. long-term sustainable or B. call it quits before too much time is invested.
I disagree with this - I would agree that most projects don't end up making serious bank but I've seen a pretty impressive diversity of things being represented on patreon and taking in enough expenses to easily cover overhead costs.
If you are working for fun on an artistic/creative endeavor then you'll often need to cut personal corners to keep a real job to keep the lights on but you can seek and receive funding to prevent that hobby from becoming too much of a cost sink. This is also starting from the fact that your goal isn't to build a megacorporation (at least I didn't read it that way) - you're looking for the freedom to build a thing you want to build. You absolutely will pay a personal cost for that freedom, but the internet is a pretty diverse place where I wouldn't be surprised if you could find people willing to subsidize your work.
Like most people pursuing a passion project, it's wise not to quit your day job and throw everything in the basket initially, but if it's something you want to pursue it you can find funding to help lessen the costs you'd otherwise need to pay out of pocket.
If you are working for fun on an artistic/creative endeavor then you'll often need to cut personal corners to keep a real job to keep the lights on but you can seek and receive funding to prevent that hobby from becoming too much of a cost sink. This is also starting from the fact that your goal isn't to build a megacorporation (at least I didn't read it that way) - you're looking for the freedom to build a thing you want to build. You absolutely will pay a personal cost for that freedom, but the internet is a pretty diverse place where I wouldn't be surprised if you could find people willing to subsidize your work.
Like most people pursuing a passion project, it's wise not to quit your day job and throw everything in the basket initially, but if it's something you want to pursue it you can find funding to help lessen the costs you'd otherwise need to pay out of pocket.
Ok, I guess for some founders keeping their business viable at all requires a very large commitment. I think that's going to depend on how saturated is the market you're entering, and various other factors. I still believe that most founders could work much less if they were not in pursuit of vast wealth/fame.
if you build something nobody else had built, wouldn't that mean there is no competition?
I respect the honesty, and I am there with you. I think inventing something new is exceptionally harder because the burden of communication is exceptional.
I have spent a decade within large scale infrastructure, so I have climbed the shoulders of giants to see what can be. Once you see what can be, then there is the burden to communicate what you see. It's not easy, and you learn deep respect for all the previous innovations because they required exceptional communications.
Here I am, an aging man, and I've invented my thing. It's a programming language for board games that lets you build durable compute. You don't have to worry about failures at all. The machine can live forever! It's great, but I have to communicate and prove its value.
I intend to retire and tinker on it for a decade:
http://www.adama-lang.org/docs/what-the-living-document
I have spent a decade within large scale infrastructure, so I have climbed the shoulders of giants to see what can be. Once you see what can be, then there is the burden to communicate what you see. It's not easy, and you learn deep respect for all the previous innovations because they required exceptional communications.
Here I am, an aging man, and I've invented my thing. It's a programming language for board games that lets you build durable compute. You don't have to worry about failures at all. The machine can live forever! It's great, but I have to communicate and prove its value.
I intend to retire and tinker on it for a decade:
http://www.adama-lang.org/docs/what-the-living-document
have a kid then
Well we used to have a society with a division of labor and stable institution of marriage so that women didn't have to work themselves to death through the child rearing years but we decided as a society that in order for women to be truly free, they need to be trapped in the same work to death life that men have been in since prehistoric times, to the detriment of their lives and the lives of our children. But it'll be OK because the village can raise the children; just send them off to the tax subsidized day care to be raised in a 1:20 adult: child ratio (they'll be fiiiiiine) and then you can have your career and your "motherhood" (no matter that the child trusts the nanny more than you because you were always at work) too
"We" didn't decide as a society. Rather individual people (and couples) in society decided that they'd prefer to have additional income [and stimulation] by choosing to work outside the home. Collectively, that dramatically increased the labor supply as compared to 100 years ago as well as increased the demand for goods and services.
I don't want to have us go back to the old way where it was looked down upon or judged for women to participate in society as free and equal agents in deciding how they want to spend their one precious life. "Men should work and women should tend to the household and children" is way worse than "Adults should be able to make free choices about their lives [and accept the consequential outcomes resulting from those choices, both beneficial and detrimental]"
I don't want to have us go back to the old way where it was looked down upon or judged for women to participate in society as free and equal agents in deciding how they want to spend their one precious life. "Men should work and women should tend to the household and children" is way worse than "Adults should be able to make free choices about their lives [and accept the consequential outcomes resulting from those choices, both beneficial and detrimental]"
Counterpoint: let's say I hate the effect that car-ownership has had on society - you can't just tell me "well then you should just choose not to own a car". The problem is that society itself has been reshaped around the assumption that essentially everyone has a car. For the vast majority of people in the vast majority of locations in the USA, it's simply not viable to live without a car, or ready access to one.
That doesn't mean I should be able to reshape all of society according to my whims, but it seems flippant to dismiss the material circumstances that make single-breadwinner families economically infeasible for most American families by saying that people can just choose to live that life if they want.
That doesn't mean I should be able to reshape all of society according to my whims, but it seems flippant to dismiss the material circumstances that make single-breadwinner families economically infeasible for most American families by saying that people can just choose to live that life if they want.
What you say is true, but partly orthogonal. If not owning a car is one of the most important things to you, then as a friend, I would counsel you to arrange your life to prioritize that. Live in NYC or Boston. Or Amsterdam or Paris. In all of those places, car ownership is a net negative and so you'll find a lot of life arranged to assume you don't own a car and as a result, a lot of like-minded people.
If your frustration is that many others choose to own a car and prioritize their consumption differently, again as a friend I would tell you in the most polite way I could muster to make your choices based on your values and let others make their choices based on their values. You can also try to reshape all of society or some small corner of it, but first and foremost, I'd advise you to make pragmatic choices to improve your daily existence.
If your frustration is that many others choose to own a car and prioritize their consumption differently, again as a friend I would tell you in the most polite way I could muster to make your choices based on your values and let others make their choices based on their values. You can also try to reshape all of society or some small corner of it, but first and foremost, I'd advise you to make pragmatic choices to improve your daily existence.
> arrange your life to prioritize that. Live in NYC or Boston. Or Amsterdam or Paris. In all of those places, car ownership is a net negative and so you'll find a lot of life arranged to assume you don't own a car and as a result, a lot of like-minded people.
That was indeed my point - "just go live in NYC or Boston" is not realistic for most people for a variety of reasons.
That was indeed my point - "just go live in NYC or Boston" is not realistic for most people for a variety of reasons.
What I internalize from that is that the life optimization function coefficient on "live without a car" is not high enough for that person to outweigh the coefficients and input variables on other quality of life factors.
If "live without a car" was 1.0 and all other factors were 0.0, they'd decide to go live in NYC/Boston/someplace else that optimized that. Since they don't, they have other factors that they are weighing (probably implicitly) to conclude that they shouldn't do that.
No one can have everything they want. Most people can have the one thing they want most in the world, if they're willing to make enough other sacrifices to get it.
If "live without a car" was 1.0 and all other factors were 0.0, they'd decide to go live in NYC/Boston/someplace else that optimized that. Since they don't, they have other factors that they are weighing (probably implicitly) to conclude that they shouldn't do that.
No one can have everything they want. Most people can have the one thing they want most in the world, if they're willing to make enough other sacrifices to get it.
I hate the effect that car-ownership has had on society and I refuse to own a car personally. I advocate for urban planning that reinforces walkable neighborhoods and tighter parking restrictions and choose to live in a city which isn't completely foot-friendly but is better than most. Choosing to live car-free does impose restrictions on my freedom of movement, but it only prevents me from going to places I have no desire to go to.
I'd also say it's absolutely fine to try and reshape all of society according to your whims - that's sort of what everyone is doing in a democracy constantly. Just don't get upset if some folks object and it doesn't work.
I'd also say it's absolutely fine to try and reshape all of society according to your whims - that's sort of what everyone is doing in a democracy constantly. Just don't get upset if some folks object and it doesn't work.
But now I have to be twice as financially successful to provide the equivalent level of support my parents did while my wife opts to be a full time parent.
We both made free choices, but the environment has now made that considerably more expensive.
Don't get me wrong, this isn't a value judgment but, sadly, being a stay at home parent isn't economically "valuable" and so the incentives have shifted over the years.
We both made free choices, but the environment has now made that considerably more expensive.
Don't get me wrong, this isn't a value judgment but, sadly, being a stay at home parent isn't economically "valuable" and so the incentives have shifted over the years.
On the economic value point, my spouse elected to stay home when our second was born as we calculated that with their (well above median pay, PhD required) science job, that with two in daycare or paid pre-school, we were just breaking even on an after-tax monthly cash basis and so they’d be working full-time and the only headway we’d be making from their work and missing our kids’ development was maxing out another 401k account.
For us, that was an absolutely economically valued choice to stay home. Now that they’re in school, freelance science consulting adds to the household retirement savings in a very significant way (when self-employed, you can squirrel away about 92% of the gross income up to mid-five figures), which by now has probably filled in the gap from several years of no 401k contributions and growth and provides them with the intellectual stimulation and contribution in their field that is also desired.
For us, that was an absolutely economically valued choice to stay home. Now that they’re in school, freelance science consulting adds to the household retirement savings in a very significant way (when self-employed, you can squirrel away about 92% of the gross income up to mid-five figures), which by now has probably filled in the gap from several years of no 401k contributions and growth and provides them with the intellectual stimulation and contribution in their field that is also desired.
I don't believe that is all down to the changing demographics of the labor force. Another aspect is the availability of land in desirable locales (i.e. close to metro areas). There are more than twice as many people in the U.S. now as there were "in the good old days" (by which I'm referring to the 50s and early 60s). And houses have gotten larger. And on top of that, people have been generally expressing a preference toward urbanization, with less than half as many people living in rural areas today compared to the 50s. All these factors have had a significant effect on housing prices, the dominant cost most American families pay.
The fact that you need to provide so much more value as a worker isn't due to the fact that both parents tend to work (at least not directly) it's due to the fact that modern society has much more rent seeking than previous generations had to deal with. Because most families have more wealthy individuals can squeeze families more before they reach the breaking point and have done so to the point where the average family doesn't have as much spare as it should given everyone's productivity.
The inability to have one working parent support a family comes down to wealth inequality like a lot of modern ills.
The inability to have one working parent support a family comes down to wealth inequality like a lot of modern ills.
If you live anywhere with cheap cost of living you can have a pretty chill lifestyle and raise kids. If you want to live in a tournament zip code you have to live a tournament lifestyle. The US is a gigantic country that is mostly empty.
Potentially controversial thought here, but I'd like to bring it up for discussion.
I feel like the work ethic I see throughout the industry is extremely toxic to society, and leads to some of this. In China for example there's a so-called "996" work schedule (9am-9pm, 6 days a week) which is basically expected of everyone in tech, unfortunately, and it seems Silicon Valley is heading that direction as well with all the off-hour meetings, weekend work, and on-call requirements. Many SV companies also demand 72 hours or more of work per week, in my adecnotal observations.
What I'm often observing is:
(a) such toxic work ethic is largely set by male founders who don't care about other important things than work e.g. family plans
(b) others in the industry are forced to compete with those ridiculous standards, including females, those with disabilities, those already with family, those taking care of a family member, etc.
(c) this results in those groups being consequently disrespected by investors because they can't match up to the workaholic male founders who don't care about anything but work. I've heard several investors talk negatively about females behind their back because "they might want to have kids".
(d) this results in more workaholic male CEOs rising to the top
(e) the cycle repeats
Are my observations and inferences correct, or am I off? Open question here.
I feel like the work ethic I see throughout the industry is extremely toxic to society, and leads to some of this. In China for example there's a so-called "996" work schedule (9am-9pm, 6 days a week) which is basically expected of everyone in tech, unfortunately, and it seems Silicon Valley is heading that direction as well with all the off-hour meetings, weekend work, and on-call requirements. Many SV companies also demand 72 hours or more of work per week, in my adecnotal observations.
What I'm often observing is:
(a) such toxic work ethic is largely set by male founders who don't care about other important things than work e.g. family plans
(b) others in the industry are forced to compete with those ridiculous standards, including females, those with disabilities, those already with family, those taking care of a family member, etc.
(c) this results in those groups being consequently disrespected by investors because they can't match up to the workaholic male founders who don't care about anything but work. I've heard several investors talk negatively about females behind their back because "they might want to have kids".
(d) this results in more workaholic male CEOs rising to the top
(e) the cycle repeats
Are my observations and inferences correct, or am I off? Open question here.
I'm not sure if you've got the details right, but it is definitely true that if you are taking part in any elite competition, you are probably going to be competing against people who are working very hard. I don't think that this is specific to male cofounders. Even in the counterfactual world where all founders are women, some will work harder than others, and if there is a perception that the harder workers are more likely to succeed, there will be pressure on everyone else to work harder as well.
> specific to male cofounders
I guess what I was trying to say is, male founders have a few biological choices that female founders don't, and I'm suggesting that it should be considered unethical to set industry work-hour standards to a level that only males can achieve because males are able to de-prioritize biology.
An article about one of the most widely acclaimed male founders today:
"As an Apple employee in the early 1990s, he almost walked out of the delivery room when the impending birth of his first child threatened to disrupt a presentation he was scheduled to give. As president of Google China from 2005 to 2009, he had a special table installed on his bed so that he could sit directly up from sleep and immediately begin responding to emails, without having to waste time standing up or reaching for a laptop."
I'm hypothesizing that behavior like this, at different scales, is quickly becoming both romanticized and expected of founders, and that is marginalizing all groups except single males.
https://qz.com/work/1488217/a-former-symbol-of-silicon-valle...
I guess what I was trying to say is, male founders have a few biological choices that female founders don't, and I'm suggesting that it should be considered unethical to set industry work-hour standards to a level that only males can achieve because males are able to de-prioritize biology.
An article about one of the most widely acclaimed male founders today:
"As an Apple employee in the early 1990s, he almost walked out of the delivery room when the impending birth of his first child threatened to disrupt a presentation he was scheduled to give. As president of Google China from 2005 to 2009, he had a special table installed on his bed so that he could sit directly up from sleep and immediately begin responding to emails, without having to waste time standing up or reaching for a laptop."
I'm hypothesizing that behavior like this, at different scales, is quickly becoming both romanticized and expected of founders, and that is marginalizing all groups except single males.
https://qz.com/work/1488217/a-former-symbol-of-silicon-valle...
I personally don't believe, at least at the founder/executive level, that this is a standard that has been set. Rather, there is a degree of self-organization here. Individuals are making decisions that they believe will help them compete better. I doubt there is a practical route toward lessening this effect, short of detonating the whole concept of the startup and possibly the entire economic system. There is zero chance that you're going to convince individual founders to take steps that they believe will make them less competitive in the name of "ethics."
Personally I don't find it romantic at all, and therefore I am not a startup founder. I love my 9-5.
Personally I don't find it romantic at all, and therefore I am not a startup founder. I love my 9-5.
What aspects of male biology are they de-prioritizing? The need to participate in child-rearing?
Males can more easily wait till 40+ to have children.
Males don't have periods. If work hours are kept to a healthy level, both males and females can achieve those work hours averaged over a long time because there is sufficient time for rest. If sufficient rest isn't planned into the schedule, there isn't time for periods, and that culture unfairly favors males.
Males don't get pregnant, and are often looked down upon, or lose promotion and investment opportunities, for working less hours to help their pregnant or child-rearing partners. The males who set aside time for family are out-competed by males who either (a) don't value having a partner or children or (b) treat their family like crap by not being there for them. (I'm saying this from direct observations of acquaintances and friends.)
Males don't have periods. If work hours are kept to a healthy level, both males and females can achieve those work hours averaged over a long time because there is sufficient time for rest. If sufficient rest isn't planned into the schedule, there isn't time for periods, and that culture unfairly favors males.
Males don't get pregnant, and are often looked down upon, or lose promotion and investment opportunities, for working less hours to help their pregnant or child-rearing partners. The males who set aside time for family are out-competed by males who either (a) don't value having a partner or children or (b) treat their family like crap by not being there for them. (I'm saying this from direct observations of acquaintances and friends.)
Men can have (with more difficulty, it's true) children for much later in their lives relative to a woman of the same age.
A bit of cultural context on "996" even though most of my cousins in China don't work in tech, the context is useful.
The mandated retirement age is 60 over there so most of my aunts and uncles who have grandkids are primary childcare providers for my cousins. Due to the one child policy from a generation ago, each baby today has 6 adult caretakers, 2 of whom work full time (sometimes "996"), 4 of whom are retired and take shifts on childcare, household tasks, or ordering delivery / grocery shopping. Some of my cousins have opted for a second child, which means 4 60-ish caretakers for 2 kiddos. It's not too bad when there's good communication and teamwork between the adults, even though several of my cousins actually have never changed a diaper and I have no idea how they'll manage when it's their turn to be a grandparent in 20-30 years time.
The mandated retirement age is 60 over there so most of my aunts and uncles who have grandkids are primary childcare providers for my cousins. Due to the one child policy from a generation ago, each baby today has 6 adult caretakers, 2 of whom work full time (sometimes "996"), 4 of whom are retired and take shifts on childcare, household tasks, or ordering delivery / grocery shopping. Some of my cousins have opted for a second child, which means 4 60-ish caretakers for 2 kiddos. It's not too bad when there's good communication and teamwork between the adults, even though several of my cousins actually have never changed a diaper and I have no idea how they'll manage when it's their turn to be a grandparent in 20-30 years time.
My personal experience has been that women are just as likely to resort to toxic work practices as men. Though a lot depends on how you define toxic.
Don't play zero-sum games with people who are willing to give up more than you. Are you precluding yourself from winning? Absolutely.
But what is the value of winning if you had to give up what you defined as too much?
But what is the value of winning if you had to give up what you defined as too much?
The one thing I am seeing is non-toxic folks are not opening enough companies that offer great work-life balance, good pay and other perks. So people who like good things are only looking for jobs and not setting up companies and offering these to others.
I don't think I've known anyone who worked a 996 or regular 70 hour weeks. Where are you seeing this?
> wish we could live in a society where people would not have to work themselves to death and were able to... you know... enjoy life
While I do agree, this is where I draw a distinction between "job" and "career." A job is something you do to make money. A career is an end in itself. Balancing a career and parenthood is incredibly hard because they're both large time commitments. Despite what the 90's told women (though this applies equally to men), you can't have it all, and you have to decide what's important to you.
While I do agree, this is where I draw a distinction between "job" and "career." A job is something you do to make money. A career is an end in itself. Balancing a career and parenthood is incredibly hard because they're both large time commitments. Despite what the 90's told women (though this applies equally to men), you can't have it all, and you have to decide what's important to you.
I think the initial intent of feminism was that "have it all" meant "here is a buffet of life paths and each individual is free to pick which ones they want in order to live a meaningful life."
But somehow that's turned into, "we put all of the life paths on your plate and if you don't eat them all, you're a failure". We went from "you can" to "you must".
Maybe there's something fundamental in the nature of esteem and prestige that leads to this. We don't see to be good at building cultures that understand there can be many entirely disparate ways to live that are equally successful.
But somehow that's turned into, "we put all of the life paths on your plate and if you don't eat them all, you're a failure". We went from "you can" to "you must".
Maybe there's something fundamental in the nature of esteem and prestige that leads to this. We don't see to be good at building cultures that understand there can be many entirely disparate ways to live that are equally successful.
offtopic:
Hey munificent! Great fan of your books. Keep up the great work!
waves and gets back to work
It's true. Telling people they can have everything does them such a disservice, because it strips them of the knowledge that these decisions exist. We all have to pick and choose where we apply our energies based on what we value most, pretending that isn't the case just means those decisions are made for them.
If I may add to your distinction between "job" and "career" -- a career can be thought of what a person ultimately decides their economic contribution to society over the course of their life is going to be. While full-time parenting is usually not counted as a career, raising the next generation certainly seems like a very critical economic contribution (among others). To this end, there are movements to recognize this contribution by paying the stay-at-home parent (usually the mother) some form of "salary" to not only fully legitimize the role of parenthood in a society that values contributions by money earned, but also to make them more independent and therefore confident by not making them fully financially dependent upon the earning spouse.
There are societies where a woman can have both, a career and a family. And that usually comes with maternity leave, parental leave, child benefits, child care, etc.
I hope I don't misunderstand you but what you said sounded to me like it's either or, and I don't think that has to be true.
I hope I don't misunderstand you but what you said sounded to me like it's either or, and I don't think that has to be true.
> A job is something you do to make money. A career is an end in itself.
By that definition most of us don't have careers.
By that definition most of us don't have careers.
I think in some places society does work with this at least reasonably well, at least from the perspective of employees - I'm sure this is harder for startup founders. But I think that startup founders are in the minority, whereas the child-raising discourse usually touches on all kinds of professionals, including normal employees.
Where I live it is common for both parents to take long stretches of leave to be with their children for the first few years of their lives, and later it is common to take special childcare days off if your child is sick, has school events, etc etc. I _think_ the government pays for most or all of this time, so I am thinking there is a way for startup founders to claim it too, but I'm not 100% sure how that works.
I don't know all the ways that it affected each person professionally, but as someone on the team working closely with quite a few of these people I never got the sense that it hindered their position at the company. I've had a TD go on 6-month paternity leave for kid 1, then go back on another 6-month leave less than a year later for #2. He went on leave leading a project and came back leading another project.
Another anecdotal example: when I was joining my first project at the place, our lead producer had just left for maternity leave. Another producer was hired to temporarily fill her role. When the original producer came back, there was no question of her position: of course she was coming back to the team she'd been leading. The replacement producer was simply moved to work on another project.
I often hear in online discourse that it can be disruptive to the project when this type of thing happens, but personally I just never experienced it like that (from the perspective of the teammate who has experienced many people at the company going on parental leave, not from the actual parent perspective). I think when taking these amounts of parental leave is the norm and not the exception, we find that it isn't really as hard or scary as many companies seem to think it is. It also has the benefit of fostering a culture where no one person is absolutely pivotal to the project (or has to work themselves to death lest their project falls apart since everything depends on them...) They _will_ go on leave to spend time with their child, and you as a team/company/management have no option but to be prepared for that.
Where I live it is common for both parents to take long stretches of leave to be with their children for the first few years of their lives, and later it is common to take special childcare days off if your child is sick, has school events, etc etc. I _think_ the government pays for most or all of this time, so I am thinking there is a way for startup founders to claim it too, but I'm not 100% sure how that works.
I don't know all the ways that it affected each person professionally, but as someone on the team working closely with quite a few of these people I never got the sense that it hindered their position at the company. I've had a TD go on 6-month paternity leave for kid 1, then go back on another 6-month leave less than a year later for #2. He went on leave leading a project and came back leading another project.
Another anecdotal example: when I was joining my first project at the place, our lead producer had just left for maternity leave. Another producer was hired to temporarily fill her role. When the original producer came back, there was no question of her position: of course she was coming back to the team she'd been leading. The replacement producer was simply moved to work on another project.
I often hear in online discourse that it can be disruptive to the project when this type of thing happens, but personally I just never experienced it like that (from the perspective of the teammate who has experienced many people at the company going on parental leave, not from the actual parent perspective). I think when taking these amounts of parental leave is the norm and not the exception, we find that it isn't really as hard or scary as many companies seem to think it is. It also has the benefit of fostering a culture where no one person is absolutely pivotal to the project (or has to work themselves to death lest their project falls apart since everything depends on them...) They _will_ go on leave to spend time with their child, and you as a team/company/management have no option but to be prepared for that.
What's a TD?
> The replacement producer was simply moved to work on another project.
I wonder about the theoretical situation when the replacement did a significantly better job, and you needed just one person for that job role.
Then, I wonder if there could be some resentment when the original less talented person returns and "kicks out" the more talented one.
Maybe a solution is to not be too attached to the company and how it's going, and have a life outside work, hmm. And just not care
> fostering a culture where no one person is absolutely pivotal to the project
That sounds good. Maybe could even be a good thing to practice project leader rotation, without anyone going for parental leave
> The replacement producer was simply moved to work on another project.
I wonder about the theoretical situation when the replacement did a significantly better job, and you needed just one person for that job role.
Then, I wonder if there could be some resentment when the original less talented person returns and "kicks out" the more talented one.
Maybe a solution is to not be too attached to the company and how it's going, and have a life outside work, hmm. And just not care
> fostering a culture where no one person is absolutely pivotal to the project
That sounds good. Maybe could even be a good thing to practice project leader rotation, without anyone going for parental leave
> What's a TD?
TD = Technical Director
Yeah, our replacement producer was great! She was great enough to go straight to just leading a different project. I did not sense any resentment or disruption in our original producer coming back though, and she was also great. Of course there was a proper handover etc as well. I think when you assume competence all around and hire competent people this becomes largely a non-issue to be honest.
TD = Technical Director
Yeah, our replacement producer was great! She was great enough to go straight to just leading a different project. I did not sense any resentment or disruption in our original producer coming back though, and she was also great. Of course there was a proper handover etc as well. I think when you assume competence all around and hire competent people this becomes largely a non-issue to be honest.
> when ... and hire competent people this becomes largely a non-issue to be honest.
Good point.
Hmm, maybe one job interview question could be to get a project current status description, and then choose the next steps (as if one got to take over that project for a white)
Good point.
Hmm, maybe one job interview question could be to get a project current status description, and then choose the next steps (as if one got to take over that project for a white)
> I wish we could live in a society where people would not have to work themselves to death and were able to... you know... enjoy life
Compared to almost everyone else who ever lived, if you live in a Western Democracy (and increasingly for many in some non-Western countries), that time is now.
People from past centuries, and people from many poor nations around the world, would be baffled that people living with the opportunities we have available to us complaining about not being able to "enjoy life".
Things certainly aren't perfect, but seize the opportunities already being afforded to you for enjoyment.
Compared to almost everyone else who ever lived, if you live in a Western Democracy (and increasingly for many in some non-Western countries), that time is now.
People from past centuries, and people from many poor nations around the world, would be baffled that people living with the opportunities we have available to us complaining about not being able to "enjoy life".
Things certainly aren't perfect, but seize the opportunities already being afforded to you for enjoyment.
> That said the advice to freeze your eggs (ie work now, live later) rubs me the wrong way.
That seems to be based on a lot of assumptions. I consider working a fulfilling job to be living. Whereas raising children seems to be the fulfilling... life role.. to you? I don't view them as separate delineated things.
I think freezing eggs should become cheaper, more viable, and covered by insurance, and there are a couple ways to improve the process.
A lot of times I find dating 28-33 year old women to be predictably annoying because many stigmatize options like freezing eggs while still rushing to check the boxes on various rites of passage, as if freezing eggs is a form of defeat. Whereas older women have just gotten over it, already done it, or something else. And younger women haven't gotten around to "wondering where this is going". My experience, corroborated by some other men. I wonder if that contributes to Leo's age limit. I don't have experience dating men, so I wouldn't know if they do something similar at certain age ranges.
That seems to be based on a lot of assumptions. I consider working a fulfilling job to be living. Whereas raising children seems to be the fulfilling... life role.. to you? I don't view them as separate delineated things.
I think freezing eggs should become cheaper, more viable, and covered by insurance, and there are a couple ways to improve the process.
A lot of times I find dating 28-33 year old women to be predictably annoying because many stigmatize options like freezing eggs while still rushing to check the boxes on various rites of passage, as if freezing eggs is a form of defeat. Whereas older women have just gotten over it, already done it, or something else. And younger women haven't gotten around to "wondering where this is going". My experience, corroborated by some other men. I wonder if that contributes to Leo's age limit. I don't have experience dating men, so I wouldn't know if they do something similar at certain age ranges.
I feel the same way. So often we optimize for situations that many of us feel shouldn't exist in the first place.
A young Buddhist monk went to a temple one day to renounce his worldly life and find enlightenment. He found the eldest member of the temple to be a very wise man and good friend. This elder also scrubbed the toilets and cleaned up the bathrooms every day.
Seeing this, the new monk spoke with the other monks in the monastery. "This is terrible! The elder should not have to do such a lowly chore. He is a great man and has already helped me to realize many things. I believe we should help give him time to do more relaxing in his old age. Let's take his cleaning supplies and hide them so that he won't have to clean the bathrooms every day." The other monks agreed, and they hid his supplies.
The elder said nothing about the new state of affairs, but instead began fasting. He did not eat for 2 days, then 3, then 5. Concerned, the monks asked him "Why do you not eat?"
The elder replied: "No work, no food."
Seeing this, the new monk spoke with the other monks in the monastery. "This is terrible! The elder should not have to do such a lowly chore. He is a great man and has already helped me to realize many things. I believe we should help give him time to do more relaxing in his old age. Let's take his cleaning supplies and hide them so that he won't have to clean the bathrooms every day." The other monks agreed, and they hid his supplies.
The elder said nothing about the new state of affairs, but instead began fasting. He did not eat for 2 days, then 3, then 5. Concerned, the monks asked him "Why do you not eat?"
The elder replied: "No work, no food."
In Germany you can get a few years paid leave for getting a child.
I met a few women who used their parenting time to found a company.
I met a few women who used their parenting time to found a company.
Paid leave is 12+2 months if both parents use it. And it’s capped at 1800€. Depending on location and business type it is absolutely reasonable to start something with that conditions. There are no paid years for sure.
Interesting, Wikipedia said something about up to 36 months per parent and per child.
36 months per child for both parents. 12+2 months are paid if both parents share the time. For one parent only 12 months. I recently did this whole paperwork, but canceled my parental leave since we found affordable property for buying. Shouldn’t be that bad with current pandemic home office ruling at work.
>But nothing is as awful as it not working out.
It only makes sense to plan, and have some sort of strategy. For those who feel it's their best option to freeze eggs, do it sooner rather than later. For young women who have more options, consider that if you both want to have a family, and want to have a business, one of the two things has a time sensitive deadline. You can choose to pursue a career, and go about it the way this lady suggests, or you can have a family first, and pursue your career for the rest of your life. Whatever you decide to do, consider your options, and formulate some sort of strategy. If you just put off considering what you want, and how you'll attain, you'll wake up one day realizing it's too late.
It only makes sense to plan, and have some sort of strategy. For those who feel it's their best option to freeze eggs, do it sooner rather than later. For young women who have more options, consider that if you both want to have a family, and want to have a business, one of the two things has a time sensitive deadline. You can choose to pursue a career, and go about it the way this lady suggests, or you can have a family first, and pursue your career for the rest of your life. Whatever you decide to do, consider your options, and formulate some sort of strategy. If you just put off considering what you want, and how you'll attain, you'll wake up one day realizing it's too late.
I find it ironic that the people advocating for what used to be traditional culture. The man (generally) working and the woman(generally) raising the kids are the new counter culture. Makes me wonder if the pendulum is staring to swing the other direction.
It is not only about eggs.
Childcare requires a lot of stamina: waking up at night, multitasking all the time. It is not something you want to start doing in your 40s until your late 50s.
You do not to have a huge age gap between you and your kid and be a parent that is tired all the time.
Childcare requires a lot of stamina: waking up at night, multitasking all the time. It is not something you want to start doing in your 40s until your late 50s.
You do not to have a huge age gap between you and your kid and be a parent that is tired all the time.
[deleted]
In the United States, it's economically difficult verging on impossible for young people to have and raise children. Between the increasing costs of housing, childcare, and education, it shouldn't surprise anyone that more and more people are putting off starting a family until they're able to earn and save a substantial amount of money. That leads people like the author of this post to the very rational decision to delay pregnancy. If you want a society where people are practically free to start a family instead of putting everything they have into earning money, you need to fix things up from the material conditions, not down from the culture.
>In the United States, it's economically difficult
I doubt that until you pretend to have living conditions on par with these in Pakistan.
I bet people simply are ambitious, and have way higher expectations regarding living standards, hence this feeling of struggling in pursuing the expected standards.
> you need to fix things up from the material conditions
Birth rates:
Pakistan: 3.51
India: 2.22
US: 1.73
Denmark: 1.73
Seems like living conditions doesn't matter that much, or the correlation is negative.
> If you want a society where people are practically free to start a family
Do I? Why would I want a world where people are practically free to start a family? I think people who would like to start a family should prove that they a responsible and can manage at least their own life, not to mention the life of an infant.
I doubt that until you pretend to have living conditions on par with these in Pakistan.
I bet people simply are ambitious, and have way higher expectations regarding living standards, hence this feeling of struggling in pursuing the expected standards.
> you need to fix things up from the material conditions
Birth rates:
Pakistan: 3.51
India: 2.22
US: 1.73
Denmark: 1.73
Seems like living conditions doesn't matter that much, or the correlation is negative.
> If you want a society where people are practically free to start a family
Do I? Why would I want a world where people are practically free to start a family? I think people who would like to start a family should prove that they a responsible and can manage at least their own life, not to mention the life of an infant.
OK, now show me the average percent of a person's income required to secure a roof over your head in Pakistan. We could also talk about the difference in availability of childcare in Pakistan, or any country where strong family ties and multi-generational households are common, vs higher-income countries without these features. We would also have to consider that in many high-income countries it is literally illegal to live below a certain standard of living without running the risk of having your children taken from you by the state.
> show me the average percent of a person's income required to secure a roof over your head in Pakistan
Very high. Avg US person spends 6.4% on food, while avg Pakistani spends 40%+. [1]
> We could also talk about the difference in availability of childcare in Pakistan, or any country where strong family ties
This is my point. People in the wealthy countries are way more focused on their careers and consumption (no negative implied). It's not that people can't have more childcare by, say, earlier retirement or one parent dedicating themself to babysitting at the expense of the lower living standards.
> We would also have to consider that in many high-income countries it is literally illegal to live below a certain standard of living without running the risk of having your children taken from you by the state.
Relevant maybe for lower few percents in the West, while you are talking about "young people" in general.
[1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/this-map-shows-how-mu...
Very high. Avg US person spends 6.4% on food, while avg Pakistani spends 40%+. [1]
> We could also talk about the difference in availability of childcare in Pakistan, or any country where strong family ties
This is my point. People in the wealthy countries are way more focused on their careers and consumption (no negative implied). It's not that people can't have more childcare by, say, earlier retirement or one parent dedicating themself to babysitting at the expense of the lower living standards.
> We would also have to consider that in many high-income countries it is literally illegal to live below a certain standard of living without running the risk of having your children taken from you by the state.
Relevant maybe for lower few percents in the West, while you are talking about "young people" in general.
[1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/this-map-shows-how-mu...
I'm not a policy person, so consider this a good faith question. If government policy mandates larger leave times (both parents), who eats the cost? I'm guessing the company does and the government probably provides a tax credit? How do policy people think about this?
Say we do have such a policy, what's stopping a hiring manager from not hiring more women who might be say 30 and more likely to have kids soon? There's two parts to this question, one if we have equal leave for both parents, and if we have 2x more leave for women over men. How do policy people think about these types of arguments?
How do policy people think about costs in general for such government policies?
Say we do have such a policy, what's stopping a hiring manager from not hiring more women who might be say 30 and more likely to have kids soon? There's two parts to this question, one if we have equal leave for both parents, and if we have 2x more leave for women over men. How do policy people think about these types of arguments?
How do policy people think about costs in general for such government policies?
Even when having children young, I feel that whole child-rearing experience, aka family, takes a back seat once both parents start working full time. 8 hours work day + one hour commute = you see your kids for hour or two before they go to sleep.
Vox has this explainer video on the gender pay gap that's quite good.
In it, they describe how one of the biggest ways we can minimize the gap is (1) to have generous parental leave policies for both men AND women and (2) for there to be as much of a cultural expectation for men to be caregivers as there is for women so both take advantage of it and equitably share the burdens of parenthood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP8dLUxBfsU
I'm sure the unique nature of start-ups throws further complications into this, but I feel like this is a related issue.
In it, they describe how one of the biggest ways we can minimize the gap is (1) to have generous parental leave policies for both men AND women and (2) for there to be as much of a cultural expectation for men to be caregivers as there is for women so both take advantage of it and equitably share the burdens of parenthood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP8dLUxBfsU
I'm sure the unique nature of start-ups throws further complications into this, but I feel like this is a related issue.
You shouldn’t plan on relying on frozen eggs. They have a relatively high probability of not working. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/01/27/f...
Very good article about the poster child for this type of family planning:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/01/27/f...
And people wonder why the birth rate is continuing to decline. Our nation-wide workaholism is making family life an increasingly distant fantasy. I've had this discussion with my S/O before, and we've always come to the same conclusion: it would be irresponsible for us to adopt while both of us are working. That's a difficult place to be in, considering we're both quite passionate about our jobs. It makes me quite depressed to watch my chance at parenthood slowly pass me by, perhaps for good this time.
> it would be irresponsible for us to adopt while both of us are working.
You are falling into the classic nerd trap which is doing an absolute evaluation when you should be making a relative comparison.
The question is not, "Can I raise this adopted child in the optimal way?" The question is, "Will I raise this child at least as good as the other parents they are likely to end up with instead?"
It's not like if you don't adopt them they get whisked away to a magical realm populated full of only perfect parents. Also, your parents weren't perfect but you probably turned out OK.
You are falling into the classic nerd trap which is doing an absolute evaluation when you should be making a relative comparison.
The question is not, "Can I raise this adopted child in the optimal way?" The question is, "Will I raise this child at least as good as the other parents they are likely to end up with instead?"
It's not like if you don't adopt them they get whisked away to a magical realm populated full of only perfect parents. Also, your parents weren't perfect but you probably turned out OK.
I have learned that making relative comparisons is useless if you are not at the average.
If you are more capable than the average person, sure you can settle for an around average outcome, but that is very unsatisfying.
The way I perceive things is that I'm going to do something, I'll do it really well or not at all.
If you are more capable than the average person, sure you can settle for an around average outcome, but that is very unsatisfying.
The way I perceive things is that I'm going to do something, I'll do it really well or not at all.
Holding ourselves to impossibly high standards leads to dissatisfaction.
Accepting that we will sometimes be mediocre at what we do and knowing that we will do better over time is a healthier alternative.
Accepting that we will sometimes be mediocre at what we do and knowing that we will do better over time is a healthier alternative.
This is especially true when it comes to raising kids. Children have their own personalities. Some will be introverts and others will be party animals. Some will be quiet and others will make trouble. If a person goes into the job of parenthood with perfect preparation and explicit expectations, then failure is guaranteed.
The best approach requires some level of improvisation; we learn each child’s tendencies, accept them for who they are, and try to mold them into the best versions of themselves. I don’t see a way to prepare for this.
The best approach requires some level of improvisation; we learn each child’s tendencies, accept them for who they are, and try to mold them into the best versions of themselves. I don’t see a way to prepare for this.
I have no expectations of parenthood, but I want to be able to give my children (Assuming I have any) a large portion of my attention to try and nurture them as best as I can.
That is what I mean by "doing it well" in terms of parenthood.
This is partly driven by me viewing the education system as failing children, and also me wanting to try and impart more knowledge upon my children.
That is what I mean by "doing it well" in terms of parenthood.
This is partly driven by me viewing the education system as failing children, and also me wanting to try and impart more knowledge upon my children.
"Impossibly high standards" are different for every person.
I fully expect to be mediocre at something when I start doing it, but I also expect to progress past being mediocre otherwise I see little point in doing that thing.
I fully expect to be mediocre at something when I start doing it, but I also expect to progress past being mediocre otherwise I see little point in doing that thing.
I generally agree with your sentiment. However, I would say that this type of consideration is only useful when deciding to birth a child, not if you are considering adoption. In the latter case, the child is assumed to already exist in below-average circumstances.
> sure you can settle for an around average outcome,
Evaluating only a single outcome and deciding whether or not it is "average" is still doing an absolute evaluation and falling into the same trap.
The actionable question is not, "How good of an outcome will I get if I do X?" It's "How will the outcome of doing X compare to the outcome of doing Y or Z instead?"
I am in absolute terms a well below average medical practitioner. I haven't even taken a first aid class since I was a Boy Scout. Imagine I'm at the scene of a car crash and someone is bleeding out. Should I help? According to the philosophy "if I can't do something well I shouldn't do it at all", I should keep my hands clean.
But if I'm the only person on the scene and they're about to die, trying a little direct pressure is better than nothing. My well-below-average in absolute terms medical care is the best choice because all of the other options are terrible.
Maybe because we tend to be perfectionists, but I often see here on HN people completely underestimating how bad the alternative outcomes can be. Like they say about self-driving cars: the robot doesn't have to be perfect, just better than a human.
You don't have to have the best solution, just the least bad one.
Evaluating only a single outcome and deciding whether or not it is "average" is still doing an absolute evaluation and falling into the same trap.
The actionable question is not, "How good of an outcome will I get if I do X?" It's "How will the outcome of doing X compare to the outcome of doing Y or Z instead?"
I am in absolute terms a well below average medical practitioner. I haven't even taken a first aid class since I was a Boy Scout. Imagine I'm at the scene of a car crash and someone is bleeding out. Should I help? According to the philosophy "if I can't do something well I shouldn't do it at all", I should keep my hands clean.
But if I'm the only person on the scene and they're about to die, trying a little direct pressure is better than nothing. My well-below-average in absolute terms medical care is the best choice because all of the other options are terrible.
Maybe because we tend to be perfectionists, but I often see here on HN people completely underestimating how bad the alternative outcomes can be. Like they say about self-driving cars: the robot doesn't have to be perfect, just better than a human.
You don't have to have the best solution, just the least bad one.
> According to the philosophy "if I can't do something well I shouldn't do it at all", I should keep my hands clean
This is not what I meant.
What I mean is if I am going to put effort into something I'm not going to accept being mediocre.
There are plenty of things I suck at, and I'm fine with that because I put minimal effort into them.
But I won't put 10% effort into 10 things because I know I'll never get good at any of them like that. I'd rather put all my energy into 2-3 things.
If I'm to be a parent I want to be able to dedicate a lot of my energy towards it, not just the bare minimum (Which I understand is still a lot).
This is not what I meant.
What I mean is if I am going to put effort into something I'm not going to accept being mediocre.
There are plenty of things I suck at, and I'm fine with that because I put minimal effort into them.
But I won't put 10% effort into 10 things because I know I'll never get good at any of them like that. I'd rather put all my energy into 2-3 things.
If I'm to be a parent I want to be able to dedicate a lot of my energy towards it, not just the bare minimum (Which I understand is still a lot).
Although I won't have children myself, I'm very glad that I live in a country (Sweden) where we have 480 days of parental leave (and each parent has an exclusive right to 90 of those days).
Yes, you don't get paid as much during those days (~80%), but it allows parents (not just mothers) to stay home for longer periods of time to raise their children. It can ofc cause some disturbances in your career (especially if you're working at a startup), but it allows for a much better work-life balance than parents can get in the states.
Yes, you don't get paid as much during those days (~80%), but it allows parents (not just mothers) to stay home for longer periods of time to raise their children. It can ofc cause some disturbances in your career (especially if you're working at a startup), but it allows for a much better work-life balance than parents can get in the states.
Not sure how this solves the issue of “I want to commit to a start up for 10 years and now my fertility sucks”
> it would be irresponsible for us to adopt while both of us are working.
Why have you convinced yourself of this? You do realize that the vast majority of families have both parents working. Is it irresponsible for all of us to have done so?
I too struggled with the fear before having children. Fear that it would ruin my personal life, my fun, my recreation; fear that lack of sleep would kill me; fear that I wouldn't be any good at it. All of it unfounded, as the instincts we are all born with kicked in and gave me the strength I needed to adapt.
You can do both. In fact, if your work is already taking over your life to the extent where you can't imagine having the time for children, there's a strong chance your quality of life will improve because the children will force you (and give you an emininently socially acceptable excuse to) step back and change how your time is allocated.
Specifically, as far as adoption is concerned, you're also faced with knowing that you could provide an excellent home for someone who may very well end up in a much worse situation otherwise. The horror stories of people who adopt children just to get a cheque... you personally can make a difference on this front.
All of this wealth flows to us working in tech, more than most of our ancestors ever had... to not use our security to raise good children is at once both a waste of ten thousand years of sacrifice, and also a shirking of our own personal responsibility to society. I know that social contract feels like it's breaking down, but it is only through our actions that we can mend it, and raising good children who still believe in civil society is probably one of the best ways of doing that.
Your chance is not over unless you choose for it to be.
Why have you convinced yourself of this? You do realize that the vast majority of families have both parents working. Is it irresponsible for all of us to have done so?
I too struggled with the fear before having children. Fear that it would ruin my personal life, my fun, my recreation; fear that lack of sleep would kill me; fear that I wouldn't be any good at it. All of it unfounded, as the instincts we are all born with kicked in and gave me the strength I needed to adapt.
You can do both. In fact, if your work is already taking over your life to the extent where you can't imagine having the time for children, there's a strong chance your quality of life will improve because the children will force you (and give you an emininently socially acceptable excuse to) step back and change how your time is allocated.
Specifically, as far as adoption is concerned, you're also faced with knowing that you could provide an excellent home for someone who may very well end up in a much worse situation otherwise. The horror stories of people who adopt children just to get a cheque... you personally can make a difference on this front.
All of this wealth flows to us working in tech, more than most of our ancestors ever had... to not use our security to raise good children is at once both a waste of ten thousand years of sacrifice, and also a shirking of our own personal responsibility to society. I know that social contract feels like it's breaking down, but it is only through our actions that we can mend it, and raising good children who still believe in civil society is probably one of the best ways of doing that.
Your chance is not over unless you choose for it to be.
There are 2 young married couples (mid 20's) in my immediate family who cannot get pregnant naturally, and they really want to and have been trying for multiple years. The issue is bigger than who is doing what job. Something external, likely environmental, is messing with our biology as it's happening all over the world, not just here.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/15/world-population-falling-fer...
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/15/world-population-falling-fer...
> And people wonder why the birth rate is continuing to decline
We’re at 7.8 billion humans on this planet and rising. I don’t think we have to worry about the birth rate declining. If anything, we should do everything in our power to lower it as much as we can.
We’re at 7.8 billion humans on this planet and rising. I don’t think we have to worry about the birth rate declining. If anything, we should do everything in our power to lower it as much as we can.
I don't see how well educated, career oriented people having fewer children will meaningfully reduce the birth rate.
The data I've seen shows that poorer countries and families tend to have a higher birth rate than wealthier countries and families. To abstain from having children as a well educated, well off individual because you want the global population to drop is like not drinking a glass of water when you're thirsty because there's a drought, while farmers consume thousands of acre feet of water. It's not rational.
The data I've seen shows that poorer countries and families tend to have a higher birth rate than wealthier countries and families. To abstain from having children as a well educated, well off individual because you want the global population to drop is like not drinking a glass of water when you're thirsty because there's a drought, while farmers consume thousands of acre feet of water. It's not rational.
If we lower the birth rate below replacement (roughly 2 children per couple), humanity will die out. This is not a desirable outcome.
If the answer is, "well, the birth rate will never lower that far, because some people are going to keep having children" -- who will those people be? (Do you presume to be able to choose who gets to have children and who does not?)
Aren't those some people then doing a great service, keeping humanity alive? Shouldn't we value their efforts, and give them support?
Also, drastically lowering birth rates has negative effects on demographics and economies (e.g. a population pyramid heavily weighted toward the elderly, without enough young people to do the work of taking care of them, or the productive work of maintaining and improving society generally).
If the answer is, "well, the birth rate will never lower that far, because some people are going to keep having children" -- who will those people be? (Do you presume to be able to choose who gets to have children and who does not?)
Aren't those some people then doing a great service, keeping humanity alive? Shouldn't we value their efforts, and give them support?
Also, drastically lowering birth rates has negative effects on demographics and economies (e.g. a population pyramid heavily weighted toward the elderly, without enough young people to do the work of taking care of them, or the productive work of maintaining and improving society generally).
While that's fundamentally true, it's not like humanity would fare particularly well 50 years in the future if everyone stopped having children for 20 years right now.
Most of Africa would do a whole lot better if their birth rates declined rapidly. They still have huge child mortality rates despite the advances in the west and all the aid that comes from that. These things take time to make their way to all corners of the remote world.
Then why are we continually sending aid to Africa which just powers their insane child boom?
As a male, I have always insisted to my wife to get embryos frozen.
I don't understand her reticence on the subject.
It is just an insurance policy for the future. You insure against unexpected events. Why not insure against changing your mind about having 1 (or more) children ?
*Comment : the author should have explored surrogacy. It may have made sense for her given her lifestyle / work demands.
I don't understand her reticence on the subject.
It is just an insurance policy for the future. You insure against unexpected events. Why not insure against changing your mind about having 1 (or more) children ?
*Comment : the author should have explored surrogacy. It may have made sense for her given her lifestyle / work demands.
This is a heartbreaking read, I feel for the author. This is a true case of biology not having kept up with societal progress.
"Progress"? Interesting interpretation, I'd invert that; society is miles from where it needs to be if these situations are increasing in frequency. And I don't think medi/biotech is the solution.
or you could argue that "societal progress" is at odds with basic human needs
>This is a true case of biology not having kept up with societal progress.
I think you seriously have this backwards. How can biology keep up with societal progress?
I think you seriously have this backwards. How can biology keep up with societal progress?
As a (male) who is definitely uninformed - does female fertility begin to decrease far earlier than the biological capacity to have a successful pregnancy (post conception)?
As in, if a woman was to freeze some of her eggs in say, her 20's and desire to use them for IVF in her late 30's, is it still safe for her to have a child?
As in, if a woman was to freeze some of her eggs in say, her 20's and desire to use them for IVF in her late 30's, is it still safe for her to have a child?
In short, yes, kind of. There is a decrease in success the older the mother is, but the age of the eggs plays a key role in the success rate. 20 year old eggs have a higher chance of success with IVF than 35 year old eggs.
[deleted]
As a couple who had a child in their 40s (naturally) I find a lot of people overestimate the difficulty. Yes the odds of success drop dramatically with age so it's best to start when you can but even so, IIRC, the most likely outcome is no problems at all even at age 40.
The title is heavily editorialized. I know the submitter is the writer, but it's still completely different.
Really they should have fertility checks included in basic insurance for women over 30. I'm at an age where I see many women struggling to conceive because they waited to long. Knowing where you are at fertility wise at 30 gives people the chance to decide what they want to do in life
Another reason to have children earlier is that they tend to make a person mature much faster! And this is going to only be good for your career because as you get close to your 50s, you are reasonably fit, wiser and more time on your hands as the kids have now grown up...
Whats the success rate of frozen eggs?
It's complicated, see this article for more info: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51463488
Very high if they’re frozen when the woman is <35.
That's a terrible answer for a website like HN where accuracy is important.
ok, here’s your accurate answer: every situation is different and predictions are impossible.
It's amazing to me how few women in their 20s are aware of this. I have a lot of early-20s coworkers. One time I mentioned that fertility declines greatly past 35. They laughed and thought I was joking. Why is this not covered in high school health classes?
Now that we are subsidizing fertility procedures, will SV companies also subsidize nannies because productivity would depend on sleep and outsourcing it to night nannies would help female employees tremendously. Why not?
How much more can we extend this? Let’s be creative here.
How much more can we extend this? Let’s be creative here.
As an alternative opinion:
https://twitter.com/almostmedia/status/1366912616770269186?s...
Facebook and Apple will pay to freeze your eggs as an employee benefit, is that right?
Am I the only one to find this dystopian? Society should adapt to humans and not the other way around.
I agree. The implicit messaging is: "If you care about your career, then you should freeze your eggs. We'll pay for it, so no excuses." It's like they're admitting to the fact that pregnant women will be discriminated against professionally.
That is great, but also deeply depressing.
[deleted]
> It might seem weird or somehow frivolous to freeze your eggs
Maybe it’s a cultural thing, but I’d see this as good time management and life planning which should be celebrated and encouraged.
Maybe it’s a cultural thing, but I’d see this as good time management and life planning which should be celebrated and encouraged.
My wife and I waited too long to try IVF, and at that point, we had only one shot because we hadn't frozen more eggs sooner. (and our once chance was unsuccessful)
I feel like the moonshot or bust VC startup mindset is the problem here. The startup fantasy is that you're going to take investment to build a multi-billion dollar company. But most people don't need anything close to a billion dollars to do everything they want in life, so it's unfortunate that many peoples' idea of entrepreneurship is tangled up in this unicorn playbook. This version of entrepreneurship is just a status game for young white men, and the rest of us should probably consider other options.
Most middle class people would be radically more secure and happy with only a few million dollars over our current level of wealth. It sounds like a tall order, but it's a pretty low bar in the world of business. There's a huge range of financial outcomes that would be amazing success for individuals that would be miserable failures for a VC-funded company. Those are the sweet spot, because they change your life without attracting VC-backed competition.
So I see the question as: What is the easiest and most predictable way to reach my wealth target in the next 3-4 years instead of the next 30-40 years? Trading time for money won't get me there. The best answer I've come across is to create a simple idea for subscription physical product or micro-SaaS, validate the customer need, presell, then build/manufacture, and sell the shit out of it. Emphasis on selling not building.
People like to look down on the "lifestyle" business, but this seems like the best option for most people because it can be a vehicle to accumulate a life-changing amount of wealth (millions not billions) without the expectation from VC gatekeepers that you will be sacrificing every other part of your life at the alter of the business. As long as you're not yolked to the expectations of investors, you can scale your effort on the business up or down as your life and ambition dictate.
Most middle class people would be radically more secure and happy with only a few million dollars over our current level of wealth. It sounds like a tall order, but it's a pretty low bar in the world of business. There's a huge range of financial outcomes that would be amazing success for individuals that would be miserable failures for a VC-funded company. Those are the sweet spot, because they change your life without attracting VC-backed competition.
So I see the question as: What is the easiest and most predictable way to reach my wealth target in the next 3-4 years instead of the next 30-40 years? Trading time for money won't get me there. The best answer I've come across is to create a simple idea for subscription physical product or micro-SaaS, validate the customer need, presell, then build/manufacture, and sell the shit out of it. Emphasis on selling not building.
People like to look down on the "lifestyle" business, but this seems like the best option for most people because it can be a vehicle to accumulate a life-changing amount of wealth (millions not billions) without the expectation from VC gatekeepers that you will be sacrificing every other part of your life at the alter of the business. As long as you're not yolked to the expectations of investors, you can scale your effort on the business up or down as your life and ambition dictate.
The blog is about female founders specifically. What's wrong with that? If you're implying they shouldn't be founders, then what you're saying is patronizing, and if you're not, then it's off topic.
I am a female founder, and I think most people (not just women) have better options than going down the VC path.
[deleted]
The earth doesn't need more high-carbon-footprint kids. The richest 10% are responsible for more than half of global consumption emissions (https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-ric...). When they reproduce, they're likely to pass on their profligate culture to their kids. It'd be better for everyone if they abstained.
Thank you for sharing. As I understand it is low risk to freeze eggs. No offense meant, did you consider adoption at all? Is it an option?
Is adoption possible in the U.S? I had a colleague in Europe who wanted to do it (stable high-income, good careers, nice couple all around) and found it to be impossible. I've always heard it was not a thing in rich countries.
It is possible yes. The process is definitely grueling from what I’ve heard (many interviews, lots of documents to furnish, lots of luck) but it is doable.
I wish when I was younger I just had kids early when my career was at the "bums on seats" stage and I didn't have much responsibility.
Now I am older and more senior, I have more responsibilities and the expectations are higher so it is more "difficult" to dedicate more time to my offspring by taking more time off or just not going to late meetings etc.
Of course there is some power that comes with more seniority to simply say no to things outside of the normal office hours or not "taking one for the team" or whatever to do a late night or a weekender.
I guess there is an element of me thinking "If I had just done this 10 years ago it would have been a lot easier now" sort of hindsight type thing going on, but yeah it is difficult to shake the thought that I waited too long. Not just for work but also for normal social life/holidaying etc too - like if you had kids in your early 20s you could have had teenage kids (who can look after themselves) and yet be in your 30s and still be young enough to do fun/crazy things, rather than be 55-60 with teenage kids and then be too old to do a lot of stuff you used to enjoy (e.g. sports, social scene etc) although the flip side is you got to spend those 20s-30s years doing fun stuff anyway .... as you can see I am conflicted :)
tl;dr - if you are young, there is never a time when you are 100% "ready" for kids so just go ahead and do it before it is too late.
Now I am older and more senior, I have more responsibilities and the expectations are higher so it is more "difficult" to dedicate more time to my offspring by taking more time off or just not going to late meetings etc.
Of course there is some power that comes with more seniority to simply say no to things outside of the normal office hours or not "taking one for the team" or whatever to do a late night or a weekender.
I guess there is an element of me thinking "If I had just done this 10 years ago it would have been a lot easier now" sort of hindsight type thing going on, but yeah it is difficult to shake the thought that I waited too long. Not just for work but also for normal social life/holidaying etc too - like if you had kids in your early 20s you could have had teenage kids (who can look after themselves) and yet be in your 30s and still be young enough to do fun/crazy things, rather than be 55-60 with teenage kids and then be too old to do a lot of stuff you used to enjoy (e.g. sports, social scene etc) although the flip side is you got to spend those 20s-30s years doing fun stuff anyway .... as you can see I am conflicted :)
tl;dr - if you are young, there is never a time when you are 100% "ready" for kids so just go ahead and do it before it is too late.
[deleted]
Great blog post. But this HN thread has a toxic level of "well actually..." going on.
>Freeze your eggs/embryos.
Trouble is that this doesn't work too well either, or so I have read.
Trouble is that this doesn't work too well either, or so I have read.
wasn't there a study that suggested that more successful startup founders are in their 40s?
so have kids in your 20s and build your startup when the kids are old enough. use your life experience and increase your chances of success.
so have kids in your 20s and build your startup when the kids are old enough. use your life experience and increase your chances of success.
> My advice: Freeze your eggs/embryos.
Does this even work, scientifically speaking?
Does this even work, scientifically speaking?
A 2016 study of 1,171 IVF cycles using frozen eggs found that, for women under 30, each egg retrieved had a 8.67% chance of resulting in a child; for women over 40, that chance dropped to less than 3% per egg at best. More likely closer to 1%.
Reminder: If you are a woman, plan on having children in your 20s. If you’ve frozen your eggs you’ve probably wasted your money.
i don't understand why adoption isn't more popular. besides the obvious shallow reasons of wanting a biological copy of yourself etc.
I don't think this is shallow. It's part of our core human being to try and propagate our genes, and there are good personal reasons for preferring this over adoption as well.
Pregnancy can make it easier to relate to the child before they're born, at least it did for me (as a guy). I have considered adoption, but I do have a fear in the back of my mind that I might struggle to love the child as my own as quickly as I would love a genetic child. Sure this might not be completely rational, but I think a lot of the decisions w.r.t. children are emotional and more value driven rather than rational.
Pregnancy can make it easier to relate to the child before they're born, at least it did for me (as a guy). I have considered adoption, but I do have a fear in the back of my mind that I might struggle to love the child as my own as quickly as I would love a genetic child. Sure this might not be completely rational, but I think a lot of the decisions w.r.t. children are emotional and more value driven rather than rational.
I'm not feeling that. Perhaps most people are different. To me it always felt like that feeling is a social construct.
What a horribly dystopic conclusion. You can't bio-hack your way out of the consequences of hustle culture. Every working adult should have sufficient personal time to support their family (or start one). The fertility industry is a symptom of a corrupt culture in which childbearing is punished.
I'll upvote, but I disagree with the connotations that come with using the word "punished".
The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
> Startups take much longer than you’d think before they become successful.
90% of startups fail, they NEVER become successful. Gambling on some theoretical future success is just bad advice.
Also egg freezing and late age pregnancy is VERY expensive and complicated. Author herself had three miscarriages.
I would suggest something else: have children between 18-25, and start self funded company while working at home. By early 30ies, kids will be at school and company should generate some income.
90% of startups fail, they NEVER become successful. Gambling on some theoretical future success is just bad advice.
Also egg freezing and late age pregnancy is VERY expensive and complicated. Author herself had three miscarriages.
I would suggest something else: have children between 18-25, and start self funded company while working at home. By early 30ies, kids will be at school and company should generate some income.
I don't know if there's an ideal age to have kids, but 18 has always seemed way too young to me. I know a lot of people who had kids at that age who, while they love their kids, deeply regret not waiting.
You also make it sound like starting a business from home in your early 20's with kids is somehow more feasible than working a stable job. That doesn't really make sense, especially when you just talked about 90% of startups failing.
You also make it sound like starting a business from home in your early 20's with kids is somehow more feasible than working a stable job. That doesn't really make sense, especially when you just talked about 90% of startups failing.
Author waited and also regrets. My point is that having kids early is much easier and cheaper, because it is at peak physical health.
Baby requires too much attention and prevents work in normal 9-5 job with fixed schedule and meetings. But it leaves enough "holes" in time table to work on something.
Baby requires too much attention and prevents work in normal 9-5 job with fixed schedule and meetings. But it leaves enough "holes" in time table to work on something.
> I would suggest something else: have children between 18-25
Let's not undersell how hard it is to have kids when just starting out in life, when you generally have less resources, which may mean less stable housing. Couch surfing or staying with good friends for a week or two because of financial hardship problems is doable when you're single or a couple, it's much harder to swing with children unless you have very good friends in a more stable place in life than you or family. Requiring there be family means mobility is limited, and limited mobility means limited career choices.
That's not to say it's not a good idea for some people given their circumstances, just that it's not obviously a better or easier path.
Let's not undersell how hard it is to have kids when just starting out in life, when you generally have less resources, which may mean less stable housing. Couch surfing or staying with good friends for a week or two because of financial hardship problems is doable when you're single or a couple, it's much harder to swing with children unless you have very good friends in a more stable place in life than you or family. Requiring there be family means mobility is limited, and limited mobility means limited career choices.
That's not to say it's not a good idea for some people given their circumstances, just that it's not obviously a better or easier path.
Having children isn't easy. Having children near peak fertility is relatively easier than later. If a woman has the foresight to know that she would like to have a family first, and then work on her career, she could focus on finding a husband who can provide the resources necessary to both have children between 18-25, and support starting a business later.
This used to be common knowledge, and it was so for a reason. If someone doesn't want to go this route, they obviously have every right not to.. but they should understand the tradeoff.
This used to be common knowledge, and it was so for a reason. If someone doesn't want to go this route, they obviously have every right not to.. but they should understand the tradeoff.
> This used to be common knowledge, and it was so for a reason.
It also used to be much more common for women to wed older and more established men. It also used to be less common for women to go to college. There are lots of societal norms that have changed to make early parenthood less popular than it used to be.
It also used to be much more common for women to wed older and more established men. It also used to be less common for women to go to college. There are lots of societal norms that have changed to make early parenthood less popular than it used to be.
Having kids between 18-25 is very, very difficult, if you want to raise them in a financially stable 2-parent home.
I worked very, very hard to build both a financially stable life and have a family "young." I had my first kid at 28, was married at 24, and am the youngest mother I know in my professional social circle.
The only women I know who had kids 18-25 had accidental pregnancies with flings or short-term nonviable relationships, the fathers bailed, and the mother spent many years living with her parents while struggling to have a much more basic career than those discussed on this board. None of them had time, money, social support, or educational resources as single mothers to "start a self funded company while working at home."
Ideally if a woman wants to have kids, she can make a plan to have them with a committed partner at sometime around or just before 30. If she also wants to be a start-up founder, frankly she should look for a non-traditional relationship where her husband takes on most of the childcare after those early baby months, and hopefully he also has a stable but flexible corporate or blue-collar job to give them a bit of financial buffer.
I worked very, very hard to build both a financially stable life and have a family "young." I had my first kid at 28, was married at 24, and am the youngest mother I know in my professional social circle.
The only women I know who had kids 18-25 had accidental pregnancies with flings or short-term nonviable relationships, the fathers bailed, and the mother spent many years living with her parents while struggling to have a much more basic career than those discussed on this board. None of them had time, money, social support, or educational resources as single mothers to "start a self funded company while working at home."
Ideally if a woman wants to have kids, she can make a plan to have them with a committed partner at sometime around or just before 30. If she also wants to be a start-up founder, frankly she should look for a non-traditional relationship where her husband takes on most of the childcare after those early baby months, and hopefully he also has a stable but flexible corporate or blue-collar job to give them a bit of financial buffer.
The author is a female founder writing for female founders. People can choose to be founders if they want to. The issue is, what next? That's what the article is about.
Your comment reminds me of those annoying answers on Stack Overflow that say: why are you trying to do that? you shouldn't do that! you should do what I think you should do instead!
Your comment reminds me of those annoying answers on Stack Overflow that say: why are you trying to do that? you shouldn't do that! you should do what I think you should do instead!
Yeah, the writer of the article first states "The focus that’s required at first will probably force you to cut back on almost everything in your life". Then it's almost like she describes how you can also cut back on fertility. Loving my kid so much, I didn't feel great after reading the article.
[deleted]
This is really sad to read. If you want children, I can only imagine that's ultimately more important than having some company to run.
Realizing opportunities are foreclosed to you as you age is always sad, but this one seems really tough.
Realizing opportunities are foreclosed to you as you age is always sad, but this one seems really tough.
In Europe its pretty normal to have one child. It seems only in America people aspire to have 2, 3, even 4 kids.
Please don't add nationalistic flamebait to this thread, which is flammable enough already.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
kids = status = protection
The problem is compounded when you think about the types of people who are missing their fertility window. We’re talking about some of the smartest and most ambitious women in the world. It’s a huge loss of our country if we can’t create an environment that allows them to create families and offspring. What a shame.
Feminism did a lot to stigmatize motherhood. "Stay at home mom" became a term of disparagement. You're basically a dumb loser and a miserable failure if you aren't a careerist woman (which is hilarious because such moms are typically much happier than those forced to earn wages or slave away in some toxic corporate environment). I think many more women would prefer to raise their children (which, btw, is a full time job and much more important than some job and for which jobs primarily exist in the first place) instead of pushing them onto some stranger who is payed to do their job for them and then go to work. And frankly, most jobs aren't something people would miss. Feminism of this kind is and always has been an upper middle phenomenon. There is little consideration for low income earners. You think most women are just dying to be wage earners? They do it because they have to. Low income mothers have always been working women, out of necessity, not some weird sense of ambition and needing to prove something. It's the middle and upper class mothers who could afford the privilege of staying at home. (Well, until now when even the upper middle class needs two income earners just to buy a house.)
Before someone possessed by the Zeitgeist clicks that downvote button, I will add that this isn't to say women should be banned from anything. You want a career, that's your business. Also, consider that besides raising children, there is plenty to do around the community that's probably more rewarding than a full blown career (even part time is stuff). However, I am saying that the social and cultural pressure, the NECESSITY, to be a careerist, and this means at the expense of your family which is sort of an afterthought, should be ridiculed and abolished. Girls should not be taught that their self-worth and happiness are to be found in a career. No one should. In this case it's making women miserable. Maybe as people begin to sacrifice some material comforts for the sake of a healthy family life, the market will begin to shift. After all, if you don't have that income rolling in any more and you're not keeping up with the Jones' likes some zombie, then the market will need to respond in turn.
(Also, please, no IVF. IVF is gravely immoral, especially given that you typically have to fertilize multiple eggs which are then are discarded or remain frozen.)
Before someone possessed by the Zeitgeist clicks that downvote button, I will add that this isn't to say women should be banned from anything. You want a career, that's your business. Also, consider that besides raising children, there is plenty to do around the community that's probably more rewarding than a full blown career (even part time is stuff). However, I am saying that the social and cultural pressure, the NECESSITY, to be a careerist, and this means at the expense of your family which is sort of an afterthought, should be ridiculed and abolished. Girls should not be taught that their self-worth and happiness are to be found in a career. No one should. In this case it's making women miserable. Maybe as people begin to sacrifice some material comforts for the sake of a healthy family life, the market will begin to shift. After all, if you don't have that income rolling in any more and you're not keeping up with the Jones' likes some zombie, then the market will need to respond in turn.
(Also, please, no IVF. IVF is gravely immoral, especially given that you typically have to fertilize multiple eggs which are then are discarded or remain frozen.)
Instead, we talk about how sexism is the biggest problem. Sure, sexism might be annoying, but in the west, it is hardly something that creates a genuine barrier for women.
Startups have it worst, and everday I count the number of years I have to work in the high stress places I want or do a startup if I want to have two kids before 35. No one talks about planning around fertility. When I mention it to someone that I want to take time off for a couple years to have children in silicon valley, they look at me as if I'm an alien. As if wanting to be pregnant and not working at the same time as being sleep deprived and wanting to spend time with my own baby when they are at their youngest is some strange outlandish fantasy.
All careers are built this way. PhD to tenure, startups, generally high stress professions. I wish the world wasn't so male centric, that feminists actually cared about finding structural solutions instead of forcing women to become copies of men to achieve gender parity. But they care more about power than actual equality where we acknowledge that women have different needs and desires, that those needs and desires are equally valuable and not inferior to desires men have, that the two genders have different strengths and capabilities and it is equally important to reward both. And maybe not wanting to outsource your baby to a nanny during their most vulnerable years is not a heretical thought.
I wish we had more focus in allowing people to transition back from taking a few years off to raise young kids, and it wasn't automatically assumed that you would be a worse founder or professor or software engineer just because you have 2-4 years you didn't commercially work. Hell, I want to take that time to contribute to open source, something I don't get to do much usually and I'm looking forward to it because I am willing to face the consequences. But I wish more women could be less scared of their career prospects for choosing to have children.